garmin_api_wellness_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 real value beyond that: default 7-day window, hard 31-day maximum, and the warning that raw JSON fields are not normalized. It does not mention any auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only tool that is a minor gap.

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 what the tool returns, then the raw-JSON caveat, then the range constraints. No filler. The 31-day and pagination notes are slightly compressed but nothing is wasted.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the operational essentials — default range, maximum range, and the non-normalized-payload caveat. What remains missing is the date format and a clearer statement of which wellness domains are included.

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 coverage is 0% and both from_date/until_date are bare nullable strings with no format. The description compensates with the default window (7 days) and the 31-day ceiling, which is genuinely useful constraint information. It still omits the accepted date format (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD) and inclusive/exclusive boundary behavior.

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?

It names a resource (wellness activity summaries) and a scope (across a date interval), which is more than a tautology. But among ~34 siblings that split wellness into sleep, steps, stress, spo2, heart rate, hydration, body battery, etc., 'wellness activities' is ambiguous — an agent cannot tell what this tool actually returns or why it isn't garmin_api_daily_summaries or garmin_api_steps.

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 parenthetical '(activity search uses pagination)' implicitly routes bulk lookups toward garmin_api_activity_search, and the 31-day cap implies segmenting long ranges. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance listing which sibling to pick for sleep, steps, or heart rate data.

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