Garmin connection status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the substantive behavior — this is a diagnostic that returns a configuration report rather than Garmin data, and it names the specific fields surfaced. With no output schema, spelling out the report contents is exactly the value the description should add.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact inventory of reported fields, then the usage rule. Three short paragraphs, no filler, and each element adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Covers purpose, return contents, and invocation triggers for a zero-required-param diagnostic, which is nearly everything needed. The one omission is failure semantics — whether a broken connection raises an error or is reported in the output — which matters for a tool whose whole job is checking health.

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?

Only one optional parameter, response_format, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the markdown/json enum and default. The description says nothing about it, but the schema already does the work, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: verify the Garmin Personal API connection and report its configuration, then enumerates exactly what is reported (key source, token/expiry, key expiry, time zone, server version). That is far more concrete than the sibling getters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from garmin_sync_status, which is the one sibling an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 two explicit trigger conditions: call it first after any garmin_* tool fails with an auth error, or when the user asks whether the connection is set up. That is clear when-to-use guidance with a real diagnostic role. It stops short of a when-not-to-use clause or naming garmin_sync_status as the alternative for sync-state questions.

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