get_account_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, but the description adds real value beyond them: it describes the diagnostic payload, warns about keys expiring within a day, and gives interpretation rules ('not recorded' means missing, never zero). The 'informational, not medical advice' framing is useful caution but the sentence about unrecorded fields is the genuinely load-bearing piece.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: what it checks, when to call it, then how to read the results. The only wasted token is the opaque 'T9.' prefix, which carries no meaning for an agent.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description only needs to supply interpretation context, which it does: it explains the expiry warning and the 'not recorded' semantics that an agent would otherwise misread as zero. Nothing required for correct invocation or result reading is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. No misleading claims are made about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the Garmin connection') and enumerates exactly what the check reports: key validity, granted scopes, expiry warning, responding data areas, and Garmin's gaps. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling data-fetching tools (get_sleep, get_heart_rate, etc.), which return measurements rather than connection diagnostics.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: 'Use this first when something fails,' which tells the agent this is the diagnostic entry point before retrying data calls. It does not name a specific alternative or state when not to use it, but given the siblings are all domain data getters, the exclusion is nearly self-evident.

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