Garmin Daily Heart Rate

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

The description states the tool retrieves data, which aligns with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false from annotations. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what is obvious from the name and annotations (e.g., data freshness, rate limits). With good annotation coverage, a score of 3 is adequate.

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 sentence plus a brief disclaimer, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core functionality.

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 is minimal for a tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema. It does not explain how privacy_mode or response_format affect output, though the output schema likely covers return values. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not rich completeness.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For parameters like privacy_mode and response_format, the description could clarify their impact but does not.

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 states the verb (Get), resource (daily heart-rate samples and resting heart-rate context), and scope (for a date). The added disclaimer 'Not medical advice' further clarifies the tool's purpose. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like garmin_get_steps_day or garmin_get_sleep_day.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling tools for different health metrics, explicit usage direction is missing.

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