get_activities_range

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Returns' indicates a read operation, and the date-range constraint is stated. However, it does not disclose ordering, inclusivity of endpoints, timezone handling, pagination, or response format, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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?

The definition is complete enough for a simple date-range query, especially with schema-covered parameters. Yet the lack of output schema and absence of any note about ordering, pagination, or range limits leaves the return contract underspecified.

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 input schema already describes both parameters as ISO 8601 strings with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the date-range concept but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('Garmin activities'), and a scope ('within an ISO 8601 date range'). It is distinct from siblings like get_latest_activity or get_week_review, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool: when activities in a date range are needed. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools, so the usage context is present but not fully developed.

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