garmin_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job explaining mode-dependent behavior, date defaults, range limits, and data_type-specific restrictions. It does not mention session/auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, but the read-only nature and core behavioral modes are well disclosed.

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 description is well structured: a one-line purpose, parameter definitions, mode explanation, a relevant constraint note, and useful examples. Each component earns its place, and the most important operational distinction (single-day vs. list) is clearly highlighted.

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?

Given the output schema, return values do not need to be described, and the input parameters and behavioral modes are thoroughly covered. The only notable gap is the absence of any mention of session/auth prerequisites, especially since garmin_login and garmin_resume_session are sibling tools.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained with format, defaults, and behavior: data_type enumerates valid values, 'day' specifies single-day mode, and end_date/days define list-mode range. Examples further clarify realistic usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch detailed health data') and the resource ('Garmin Connect'), and the data_type list defines the scope of what this tool returns. It is distinguishable from siblings by its focus on sleep, hrv, weight, and body battery data, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.

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?

The description provides clear operational guidance: single-day mode when 'day' is provided, list mode when omitted, default values for end_date and days, and the constraint that body_battery_events and body_battery_stress only support single-day mode. It does not mention alternatives or when to prefer another Garmin tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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