garmin_recovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds behavioral context: it compares to personal baselines and performs a multi-marker audit, which clarifies the analysis scope. It does not mention any side effects or limitations, but for a read-only tool that is acceptable.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core outputs. Every sentence earns its place: what it provides, when to call it, and how it differs from a sibling tool. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With a rich output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage triggers, exclusions, and ownership. The two optional parameters are simple and well-documented in the schema, leaving no significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'days' and 'anchor_date' have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description doesn't add extra parameter detail, but with complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate. It implicitly refers to a time window ('vs personal baselines') without augmenting the schema.

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 identifies the tool's function: analyzing sleep, HRV, resting HR, and load structure against personal baselines, plus an overtraining audit. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly claiming ownership of overtraining questions and pointing to garmin_brief for single-day go/no-go.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call for tiredness, sleep, am I overtraining or getting sick, or when another tool flags recovery.' It also specifies what it does not cover (single-day go/no-go is garmin_brief), providing clear alternatives.

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