intraday

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the heart_rate mode includes resting/min/max plus samples roughly every 12 minutes, and body_battery includes level plus Garmin charge/drain events, which tells the agent what data granularity and event semantics to expect.

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 definition is short and front-loads the core purpose, then defines the key parameter. The inline quoting and 'what:' phrasing are slightly awkward, but there is little wasted text.

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 with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly sufficient: it explains the two data modes and their contents. However, without an output schema and with zero schema descriptions, it should also clarify the 'day' parameter's format and timezone behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this well for 'what' by defining both allowed modes and their contents, but it says nothing about 'day' beyond the schema default of 'today' – no date format, timezone, or historical range guidance.

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 description states a specific resource and scope: an intraday curve for one day, with two named metric modes. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like daily, timeseries, or hrv_night.

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 is only implied by the purpose: fetch intraday data when you need a curve for a single day. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as timeseries or daily.

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