Training summary

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it defines intensity zones (low = HR 1–2, moderate = 3, high = 4–5), explains CTL/ATL/TSB/ACWR semantics with the ~1.5 risk threshold, and discloses how missing Garmin load is estimated (Banister TRIMP scaled to the user's own activities) plus that the response reports the estimated share.

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 core deliverable is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining paragraphs cover estimation caveats and defaults, each earning its place. It is on the longer side and the zone/ACWR detail is dense, but not padded with filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: metrics per period, intensity distribution with a pattern classification, and the load trend block. Defaults, filtering, multisport/walking handling, and the estimation caveat cover everything needed to call it correctly.

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 80%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning and baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: it clarifies the sport filter accepts either a parent type or an activity type (e.g. virtual_ride), and that week/month grouping defaults to week over the last 12 weeks.

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 names a specific verb (summarize) and a precisely scoped resource: per-week/per-month aggregates of sessions, hours, distance, elevation, load, intensity distribution and load trend. The aggregation scope makes it immediately distinguishable from per-activity siblings like garmin_get_activity or garmin_list_activities without opening those schemas.

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?

It gives concrete operating context: defaults to the last 12 weeks grouped by week, and filtering is done via sport (with examples such as running, cycling, or a type like virtual_ride). It does not state when to prefer garmin_query, garmin_recovery_trends, or per-activity tools instead, so there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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