get_daily_steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'read-only' note in the description is largely redundant. It adds mild context by naming the source system (Garmin Connect), but says nothing about range limits, whether dates are inclusive, timezone handling, or what happens with a very large span.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the date format is stated twice ('format YYYY-MM-DD' and then 'Dates are YYYY-MM-DD'), wasting a third of the text. The phrasing 'available steps data' start and 'end' format' is awkwardly compressed and reads as garbled.

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 return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the sibling disambiguation against get_steps_data and the range-boundary semantics, which matter for a two-date query 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden — and it does at least name both parameters and specify the YYYY-MM-DD format, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says both are required, whether the range is inclusive of end, or how timezone affects which day's steps are returned.

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 verb (fetch) and a resource (steps data), but 'available steps data' is vague about granularity and scope, and the name's 'daily' distinction never appears in the text. A sibling named get_steps_data exists and the description does nothing to separate them, leaving real ambiguity about which one returns what.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_steps_data, get_daily_summaries, or get_floors — all plausible neighbors for step counts. Only the date format is implied as a usage constraint; there are no alternatives or exclusions named.

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