garmin_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the implicit 7-day default window and the fact that paging is continued via next_offset in the response, which the agent cannot learn from annotations alone.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded block: purpose first, then filter, default window, ranges, then pagination. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic semicolon chaining and the phrase 'local activity dates' are slightly terse for a first read.

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?

For a 5-parameter, all-optional search tool with an output schema that covers return values, the description supplies defaults, bounds and pagination behavior. The only meaningful gap is date-format semantics for start/end, which must be guessed.

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%, so the description must carry all five parameters, and it effectively does: the start/end pair (activity dates), activity_type ('optional type e.g. running'), limit ('1–50') and offset ('>=0'). What is missing is the expected date string format and whether start/end are inclusive, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search workouts by Garmin's local activity dates') plus the optional type filter, so the agent knows it is a filtered list/search over activities. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbors like garmin_activity or garmin_api_activity_search, leaving the agent to infer which activity tool is appropriate.

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?

'Default last 7 days' and 'Follow next_offset to check for more pages' give real operational guidance on windowing and pagination. However, there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many sibling activity tools, so selection is only implied.

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