Garmin Training Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds only the aggregated nature and device support condition, which is already implied. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication nuances, or potential data gaps beyond device support.

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 disclaimer, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides the key condition and legal caveat.

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's simplicity (read-only, idempotent, no destructive effects) and the presence of annotations, input schema, and output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and major constraint. However, it does not explain what types of training status are included (e.g., load, focus) or how to interpret the output, though the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage based on the provided schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 aggregated training status', and the scope 'for a date when supported by the device/account'. The addition of 'Not medical advice' is a relevant disclaimer. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve specific metrics (e.g., steps, heart rate) by focusing on aggregated training status.

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 includes a conditional phrase 'when supported by the device/account', which hints at prerequisites but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like garmin_get_training_readiness_day or garmin_get_daily_summary. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided.

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