get_body_battery_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the 'read-only' restatement adds nothing. The genuinely additive content is the enumeration of event types (sleep, recorded activities, auto-detected activities, naps) and the data source (Garmin Connect), which tells the agent what the payload actually contains.

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 action and required date format in the first clause. Slightly padded by stating the date format again in a parenthetical at the end, which could be cut without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so the paragraph describing the list-of-dictionaries return value is largely redundant; the space would have been better spent distinguishing this from get_body_battery. Still, for a single-required-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for 'cdate' — and it does, twice specifying the YYYY-MM-DD format. The duplicate mention is wasteful but the semantic gap is filled.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Return body battery events') scoped to a single date, which is clearly distinct from a generic body battery read. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closely named sibling get_body_battery, so the agent must infer that one returns daily levels and this one returns discrete events.

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 one-date scope; the description never says when to choose this over get_body_battery or get_stats_and_body. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to guess between near-identical siblings.

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