Daily summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that this is a multi-metric aggregate summary, and the schema's `detail` parameter explains the summary/full payload trade-off. It does not discuss potential quirks like missing data or timezone behavior, so it adds moderate but not extensive behavioral context.

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 two sentences, both packed with information. The first concisely lists the returned metrics; the second provides clear use-case guidance. No wasted words or repetition, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool is a low-complexity read-only retrieval with no output schema. The description lists all major categories of returned data, and the schema covers parameters well. It lacks only minor operational details (e.g., behavior on unavailable data), which are not critical for this type of tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%: both `date` and `detail` have thorough descriptions with relative date syntax and the summary/full distinction. The description itself does not mention parameters, but the schema fully carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the all-round wellness summary for one day' and enumerates the included metrics (steps, distance, floors, calories, etc.), distinguishing it from specialized siblings like garmin_get_sleep or garmin_get_heart_rate. It also frames its role as the aggregate summary tool.

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Start here for broad questions like "how active was I on Tuesday"' and notes it 'answers in one call what would otherwise take several,' implying aggregation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, missing full exclusion guidance.

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