Get Garmin daily summaries

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context: a 7-day default window, a hard 92-day cap per call, and the caveat that today's row is partial. That partial-data warning is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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 purpose and scope, then limits, then alternatives — a sound ordering with no filler sentences. The metric enumeration is long but earns its place by letting an agent match on specific fields; only slight trimming would improve 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, two-optional-parameter range query with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the default and maximum window, the partial-today caveat, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters already document their defaults and the 92-day limit, so the description's mention of defaults and the cap largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 applies; no extra syntax or timezone nuance is added beyond what start_date/end_date already say.

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+resource ('all-day wellness per day over a date range') and then enumerates the exact metric families returned (heart rate, Body Battery, stress, intensity minutes, steps, calories, respiration). It explicitly distinguishes itself from garmin_get_sleep_summaries, garmin_get_hrv_summaries and garmin_get_days, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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 an explicit selection criterion ('for trends') plus named alternatives for the cases this tool does not cover: sleep and HRV over a range route to garmin_get_sleep_summaries / garmin_get_hrv_summaries, and all-in-one per-day data routes to garmin_get_days. When and when-not are both stated.

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