Get Garmin steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: today's row is partial (data-completeness caveat), the default range, and a hard 28-day ceiling per call. It does not describe error conditions or what an empty range returns, which keeps it from 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 short sentences with zero filler, and the most important content (what it returns, plus the partial-today caveat and range limits) is front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a safety-covering annotation set, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: the return shape, the partial-today caveat, and the range ceiling. With no output schema present, a slightly richer note on return structure or empty results would make it fully complete.

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 carry detailed descriptions including defaults, time zone, and the 28-day cap, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Defaults to the last 7 days; at most 28 days per call' largely restates the schema rather than adding new parameter meaning, which fits the baseline 3.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and granularity (steps per day over a date range) and even enumerates the returned fields (daily step goal, walking/running distance in km). It is unambiguously distinguishable from every sibling (hrv, sleep, body_battery, etc.). It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage context is only implicit: the resource name makes clear it is for step data, and 'Defaults to the last 7 days; at most 28 days per call' sets scoping constraints. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives (e.g. garmin_get_days or garmin_get_daily_summaries for aggregate daily metrics), leaving the agent to infer overlap.

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