Garmin status

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

Adds important behavior beyond the annotations: it reports token existence and age without calling Garmin, so revoked tokens still appear authenticated. This is a critical limitation that an agent cannot infer from the schema or read-only/idempotent hints alone.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the failure-first guidance and the important revocation caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema, output schema availability, and simple status-check purpose, the description is complete. It explains both the normal use case and the key limitation about revoked tokens, so an agent has what it needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter details.

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 and resource: checking whether the server holds a Garmin login. It clearly distinguishes itself as a status/auth check rather than a data retrieval tool, and the sibling list contains no tool with the same purpose.

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 clear usage context: 'Call this first if anything fails.' It also explains why a positive status may be misleading and that other calls reveal revocation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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