get_max_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description merely restates 'read-only' and adds no behavioral context beyond that—no explanation of what 'available' means, no rate-limit or data-availability caveats, and no clarification of how this differs behaviorally from other read-only metric tools.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, but the date format is stated twice ('format YYYY-MM-DD' and 'Dates are YYYY-MM-DD'), wasting space while the meaning of 'max metrics' is never addressed.

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. The single parameter is documented, and the read-only/open-world profile is covered by annotations. However, the tool's core subject—what 'max metrics' actually are—is left undefined, which is a meaningful gap for correct tool selection.

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 document that the sole required parameter 'cdate' expects a date in YYYY-MM-DD format, which fully compensates for the missing schema description, though the name 'cdate' itself remains unexplained.

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?

It has a specific verb ('Return') and a resource ('max metric data'), but 'max metrics' is not defined, so an agent cannot tell what data is actually returned or distinguish it from siblings like get_fitnessage_data, get_training_status, or get_personal_record. The Garmin Connect reference helps scope it, but the core resource remains vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling metric tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only gives input formatting, leaving tool selection entirely to inference.

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