get_user_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or any error behavior. It only states the function name and parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, containing only the essential information without any redundant or verbose text. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple getter, the description is adequate: it states the purpose and documents the parameter format. While it does not specify output details or the exact content of the summary, the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool make this acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The date parameter is described with a specific format (YYYY-MM-DD), which adds useful meaning beyond the bare string type. However, it does not clarify what the date represents (e.g., activity date, log date) or whether a range is expected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and object ('user summary data'), and mentions compatibility with garminconnect-ha, which gives context. It is distinct from nearby getters like get_stats or get_daily_steps, but does not elaborate on what 'user summary' includes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternative getters. It lacks context on preferred scenarios, limitations, or how it differs from similar tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.