Daily summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the list of wellness metrics included, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as how the optional date is interpreted, what happens with no date, or timezone handling.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core concept ('whole-day wellness rollup') and then lists included metrics without wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool, though it sacrifices parameter clarity for brevity.

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 tool is low-complexity with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it leaves the date parameter completely unexplained, including accepted format and what a null default means, which is a notable gap for the only input an agent must provide.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the date parameter, but it never mentions date, its format, or its default behavior. The parameter name and default null provide minimal meaning, but the description adds no semantic value for the only input.

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 identifies a specific resource ('whole-day wellness rollup') and lists the included metrics (steps, calories, distance, floors, stress, body battery), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like garmin_steps or garmin_stress, but the 'rollup' framing distinguishes it as an aggregate view.

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 this tool is for a daily aggregate wellness overview, which suggests when an agent might prefer it over metric-specific siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for single-metric queries, leaving usage selection mostly to inference.

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