Get Garmin heart rate

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description still adds real content: it previews the returned fields including alert thresholds, and discloses the 15-minute averaging resolution used for samples. It does not say what happens when no alerts fired or when a day has no data, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the call returns, then the optional flag, then the alternative tool. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or title.

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 two-optional-param read with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the shape of the response and the meaning of the sample flag. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the result from the description alone.

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 the schema already states the YYYY-MM-DD format, the today default, and the 15-minute averaging default. The description mostly restates that; its only addition is the sample-resolution use case, which is marginal beyond 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?

Names the exact resource and scope (one day's all-day heart rate) and enumerates what comes back: resting, min/max, Garmin's 7-day resting average, and alert values with thresholds. That distinguishes it from garmin_get_heart_rate_zones, garmin_get_hrv and garmin_get_daily_summaries without the agent needing to open 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 explicit conditional guidance for the optional include_samples flag with a concrete motivating scenario, and routes range-based resting HR queries to garmin_get_daily_summaries. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement (e.g. vs. HR zones or HRV), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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