List Garmin activities

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds two crucial behavioral constraints beyond that: the inclusive date range is limited to 31 days, and the number of results is capped at 1-100. These are not implied by annotations and help the agent set expectations, though it doesn't address pagination or ordering.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary action and core constraints are front-loaded, and every clause carries information. The description is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 output schema likely documents the return format, so that gap is covered. The description covers the two main usage modes (recent vs. date range), the range cap, and the result limit. It lacks details like date format or error handling for over-31-day ranges, but for a basic list operation with these annotations and an output schema, it is sufficient.

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 implies the start_date and end_date parameters define the inclusive range and that limit controls the result count (albeit indirectly via the '1-100' statement). However, it does not specify the date format, behavior when only one date is provided, or whether limit maps directly to the parameter. This is a partial compensation that leaves ambiguity.

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 tool lists Garmin China activities, with a specific scope: recent activities or a date range of at most 31 days. It distinguishes from siblings like get_activity_details (which targets a single activity) and get_daily_summary (which aggregates daily data). The verb 'list' and resource 'activities' are explicit, and the range limitation is a unique feature.

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 conditions for use: it can list recent activities (no dates) or a date range with a maximum of 31 days. It also mentions the result limit of 1-100, which informs the caller about constraints. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like get_activity_details, but the purpose and scope make it obvious when to use this tool over the detail-specific siblings.

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