garmin_api_heart_rate

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding genuine operational context: raw JSON fields are not normalized, defaults to 7 days, and caps at 31 days. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination behavior of this tool itself.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the two constraints that matter most. No filler, though the pagination aside is slightly cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the constraining behavior is noted. The remaining gap is that a range-limited tool exposes only one undifferentiated 'date' parameter, and the description does not reconcile how that expresses a 7- or 31-day window.

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 single 'date' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden; it mentions range defaults and a 31-day cap but never clarifies the accepted format or whether 'date' is a single day or a range start. That leaves key parameter semantics unresolved.

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+resource: retrieves daily heart-rate readings and a summary. It is distinguishable from most siblings by the 'heart rate' focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with garmin_api_heart_rate_zones, the closest neighbor.

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?

Gives the default (7 days) and hard limit (31 days) on ranges, and hints that longer spans belong in activity search via pagination. However, the alternative routing is parenthetical and ambiguous, and there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over heart_rate_zones or daily_summary.

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