Get training status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: a single Garmin request, null returned when Garmin reports nothing for the date, and that the payload is unprocessed Garmin JSON with Garmin's own field names. It stops short of describing payload structure, which is reasonable given an output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by routing and edge-case behavior. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the remaining essentials: routing to siblings, single-request cost, and null semantics. Nothing needed 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('The date to report on, YYYY-MM-DD'), so the schema already carries the syntax. The description's 'for one date' confirms the granularity but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 Garmin's training status) plus the scope (one date) and the payload contents (status, training load, VO2 max context). It explicitly names sibling alternatives it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_training_readiness and get_trend without opening either 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?

Explicit routing: 'For VO2 max over time use get_trend with metric vo2max (running) or vo2max_cycling; for whether to train today, get_training_readiness.' It names both alternatives and the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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