Get Garmin sleep

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering its safety profile. The description adds useful context: the 'China' regional scope and the date format expectation (YYYY-MM-DD), which are not present in annotations. It does not describe the output structure, but that is covered by the existing output schema.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that includes the action, resource, scope, and date format. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no redundant words or fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what data is retrieved, the regional scope, and the expected date format. It does not explain what 'sleep data' specifically contains, but the output schema is expected to cover that. The description is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

The schema shows a single 'date' parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying the date format ('YYYY-MM-DD'), adding meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema. It does not mention timezone or validation rules, but for a simple date parameter this is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('sleep data'), and scope ('Garmin Connect China') with a date format. It clearly indicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_heart_rate or get_hrv, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The usage is implied by the tool name and description but lacks any direct routing information.

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