Garmin Training Readiness

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds important behavioral context: the tool may not be supported by all devices/accounts, and includes a 'Not medical advice' disclaimer. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds a disclaimer. No redundant words, perfectly front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and an output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks guidance on what happens if the device/account does not support training readiness, and does not relate to sibling tools. The annotations and output schema fill some gaps, but the description could be more helpful.

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 information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. The response_format parameter lacks a schema description and is not clarified in the tool description, leaving a gap.

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 tool retrieves training readiness data for a specific date. The verb 'Get' and resource 'training readiness' are unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling daily data tools like garmin_get_training_status_day, but the tool name and description make the purpose distinct.

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 a usage condition ('when supported by the device/account') but does not specify when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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