Get steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, but the description adds real behavioral detail: hourly totals are GMT not local time, total is null rather than 0 when Garmin did not answer, and include_buckets surfaces quarter-hour granularity. It stops short of mentioning auth needs, rate limits or error cases beyond the null semantics.

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 the primary return shape, then routing alternatives, then edge-case semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description still supplies the timezone, null-vs-zero and bucket caveats an agent would otherwise miss. Nothing material is absent for a two-parameter read tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates include_buckets' effect and implies the day scope. The GMT-vs-local note describes the output rather than adding parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return one day's steps') plus the exact return shape (total and 24 hourly totals). It explicitly disambiguates from siblings by naming get_day_summary and get_trend, so an agent can choose correctly 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?

Names two alternatives and the precise condition that selects each: get_day_summary for the total beside the day's other numbers, get_trend with metric steps for range/average/change. This is explicit when-to-use routing rather than implied guidance.

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