Stress

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does, disclosing automatic chunking for long ranges and a 366-day ceiling. That is meaningful operational context an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the operational caveat. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 read-only, fully-documented, two-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description never says what a result entry looks like — granularity (daily average vs intraday samples), units, or scale of stress values. Those are the gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented including formats and the end_date default, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only the outer range limit (366 days), which is a real constraint but does not enrich individual parameter semantics.

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 names the resource precisely — per-day all-day stress levels — so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It offers no differentiation from similar-looking siblings such as garmin_get_day or garmin_get_daily_summaries, which may also surface stress, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like garmin_get_day or garmin_get_daily_summaries, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the presence of a date-range parameter.

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