Health snapshot

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses that metrics are trimmed to headline numbers and that unsupported metrics are reported as errors within the result rather than failing the call. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 with no fluff: the first states purpose and contents, the second gives usage guidance and error behavior. Highly concise and 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent: what is included, when to use it, and how errors are handled. The tool is simple enough that this description is complete.

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% for the single `date` parameter, which fully explains format and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 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 the tool provides an all-in-one recovery picture for a single day, listing the included metrics (daily summary, sleep, HRV, body battery, training readiness). This distinguishes it from sibling metric-specific tools like garmin_get_sleep or garmin_get_hrv.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: prefer this for open questions like 'how did I sleep' or 'should I train today', and it notes this replaces five separate calls. This clearly signals when to use it over the individual metric tools.

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