garmin_daily_readiness

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds detailed return fields (readiness_score, fc_reposo, etc.) and context about the data source (Garmin daily readiness). No contradictions; adds value beyond 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?

Description is concise with a brief introductory sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, though the Args section could be integrated into the prose.

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 description explains the tool's purpose, required input (date), output format options, and lists return fields. It is complete for a read-only tool with output schema (though output schema not shown). Error handling is minimally mentioned ('Error: ...').

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% (tool description does not document parameters beyond what schema provides). However, the description does mention date format and response_format options, repeating schema info without adding new semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it summarizes daily recovery metrics (training readiness, HRV, sleep, etc.) using specific verbs like 'Resume la recuperacion de un dia'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like garmin_sleep or garmin_hrv by being a comprehensive daily readiness summary.

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?

Implies usage ('La herramienta clave para decidir si empujar o descansar') but does not explicitly state when to avoid or mention alternative tools among the 21 siblings, such as garmin_training_status or fitness_recovery_vs_training.

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