Stress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds useful context that this is a daily aggregation (average, max, band durations), but it does not disclose date-default behavior, timezone assumptions, or how missing data is handled. That is acceptable given the read-only annotation, but not rich.

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 phrase with the key output content front-loaded. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists and read-only annotations are present, the only input parameter (`date`) is completely unexplained. An agent does not know whether to pass a date, what format to use, or what the default behavior is. This is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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% and the description never mentions the `date` parameter at all. It does not explain whether null means today, what date format is expected, or how date selection affects the returned summary. The description carries none of the parameter documentation burden.

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 (Garmin stress) and the exact data provided: average, max, and time spent in each stress band for the day. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_heart_rate or garmin_hrv by naming a specific metric and its output format.

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 for when to choose this tool over siblings or what conditions make it appropriate. The word 'stress' implies the metric, but there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites, or typical call context.

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