Garmin Training Readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context: 'when supported by the device/account' and 'Not medical advice.' It does not describe return behavior, error cases, or data freshness. With annotations present, the description provides marginal added transparency.

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?

Two sentences, 16 words total, front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place; the disclaimer is appropriately separated. No wasted text.

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?

Given the tool has 3 optional parameters with defaults and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It lacks explanation of what 'training readiness' means, possible values, or how it differs from similar metrics. The output is not described, but the output schema compensates. Still, a bit more context would improve 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%, and the parameter names and schema descriptions already convey meaning (date format, privacy modes, response format). The tool description adds no additional explanation or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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'), the resource ('Garmin training readiness'), and the scope ('for a date when supported by the device/account'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like garmin_get_training_status_day by focusing on readiness specifically.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned beyond the vague 'when supported', and no exclusions or when-not-to-use advice. The description lacks context for proper tool selection among many similar 'get' tools.

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