Get Garmin activity laps

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations it discloses three things structured data cannot: location is never returned (privacy boundary), long activities can fail on the Cloudflare free plan with a CPU-limit connector error, and the agent should report that failure rather than retry. That failure-mode handling is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 output shape, then use cases, then prerequisite, then failure handling — four dense sentences with no filler. Every sentence contributes a fact the agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the metric families returned plus the lap/rep row duality. Combined with the failure-mode note and the id-sourcing hint, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by telling the agent where activity_id comes from (garmin_search_activities), a provenance hint absent from the schema.

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 the exact output shape ("one row per lap of an activity, plus one row per interval rep when it was an interval session") and enumerates the metrics returned, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like garmin_get_activity (summary) and garmin_get_activity_streams (raw time series). An agent knows from the first clause what granularity this tool yields.

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 concrete example questions ("how did each rep go?", "which kilometres were slowest?") that select this tool, and supplies the prerequisite workflow (get activity_id from garmin_search_activities). It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer garmin_get_activity or garmin_get_activity_streams instead, so no exclusion guidance.

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