garmin_resting_heart_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose return content (daily RHR plus an optional 7-day average) and the metricId 60 convention, both genuinely beyond the schema. However, it stays silent on prerequisites (e.g., whether garmin_login must precede a call), error behavior, and what actually triggers the 7-day average.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero redundancy: purpose first, then date format/default, then return format and metricId. Every sentence earns its place and the tool is easy to scan.

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?

The presence of an output schema lowers the burden for explaining return values, and the two optional parameters are simple types. But the description leaves a real gap on what days controls and never hints that a login/session (sibling tools garmin_login and garmin_resume_session exist) is likely a prerequisite. Adequate, but an agent must guess on these points.

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 compensate. It fully specifies end_date's format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default (today), but the days parameter's meaning is only implied via “optional 7-day average” and the schema's default of 7. Whether days=7 produces the average or days sets an arbitrary window is never clarified.

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?

"Get resting heart rate (RHR) for one or more days" pairs a specific verb with a precise resource and scope, and the metricId 60 detail adds useful domain specificity. However, it never names or contrasts with overlapping siblings like garmin_daily_summary or garmin_data, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than having it stated.

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 implies when to use this tool (whenever RHR is needed) and gives operational guidance (“end_date: YYYY-MM-DD or omit for today”), but it provides no explicit when-not-to-use direction or named alternatives among the 16 siblings. Selection guidance is left entirely to inference.

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