garmin_training_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns one row per week plus totals, and emphasizes that all data comes in a single call, which conveys aggregation behavior and efficiency not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, then states output shape and usage guidance in a few lines. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 aggregation tool with an output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, that it is one call, and when to use it. The main gap is parameter semantics, especially activity_type, but the defaults and parameter names reduce ambiguity.

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 for the two parameters, weeks and activity_type. It only loosely implies 'weeks' through 'over recent weeks' and never explains activity_type or how these parameters affect results, leaving the agent to guess despite defaults being visible in 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it reports weekly training volume and explicitly lists the returned columns (distance, sessions, longest run, average pace) plus totals. It also distinguishes its aggregated, single-call nature from fetching activities range by range, so an agent can separate it from sibling activity tools.

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 explicitly says to use this 'before designing a plan rather than fetching activities one range at a time,' giving clear context and pointing to the alternative behavior. It does not name specific sibling tools or list exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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