garmin_intensity_minutes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It does add useful context by noting the weekly goal comparison, which goes beyond the raw metric name. Still, it doesn't disclose default date behavior or any output quirks, so it adds moderate but not rich context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core resource first and then the weekly-goal comparison, making it quickly scannable.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the return value is adequately covered. The main missing piece is parameter semantics for the optional date, which keeps it from full completeness. Overall it's minimal but viable.

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%: the single optional 'date' parameter has no description beyond its type and default null. The tool description doesn't compensate by explaining the expected date format or what null means (e.g., today). With no param info in the description and low schema coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 identifies the resource: moderate and vigorous intensity minutes for a day, and adds the weekly goal context that distinguishes it from plain daily metrics. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list,' but the noun-phrase is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools such as garmin_heart_rate or garmin_steps.

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?

No guidance is given on when to select this tool over siblings like garmin_daily_summary or garmin_activities. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, so an agent must infer its position from the name alone.

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