garmin_get_health_range

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still contributes real behavioral context beyond them: the hard 31-day boundary, the unit-preservation contract, and the caveat that values are device estimates rather than diagnoses. It stops short of describing what happens when the range exceeds 31 days or how partial data days are handled.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences: scope and limits first, interpretive caveats second. The metric enumeration largely restates the schema enum, which is mild redundancy, but no sentence is filler and the 31-day constraint is placed where an agent will see it.

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 read-only, three-required-parameter tool with an enum, the scope and caveats are adequate to call it correctly. With no output schema, the description still says nothing about the shape of returned data or how the seven metric families differ in what they yield, which is the main remaining gap.

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 carries the burden, and it does add nuance over the bare enum by explaining weight includes BIA estimates if supplied and that sleep/HRV figures are summaries. It adds nothing about date semantics — ordering, inclusivity of endpoints, timezone, or missing-day handling — and does not distinguish what 'daily_summary' aggregates relative to the individual metrics.

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?

Names a specific verb (Read) plus the exact resources (weight, steps, stress, sleep, HRV, Body Battery, daily summaries) and bounds the operation to at most 31 inclusive calendar days, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name or contrast any sibling, such as garmin_get_day_detail for a single day, leaving the range-vs-day split implicit despite the range constraint hinting at it.

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 31-calendar-day cap functions as an implied usage rule and signals this is a multi-day range reader rather than a single-day lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of garmin_get_day_detail as the single-day alternative, so routing is left to inference.

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