garmin_blood_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and partially meets it: it discloses a hardware prerequisite, that data only exists 'if tracked', and that outliers are flagged using AHA thresholds (>140/90 mmHg). That flagging rule is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It stops short of covering auth needs, empty-result handling, or time-window behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then the prerequisites and flagging behavior. No filler or restated boilerplate; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description covers the key behavioral facts (prerequisite, conditional availability, outlier flagging) plus the data returned. The one meaningful gap is that the 'days' window parameter is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 single parameter 'days' (default 90) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all. The agent gets no confirmation of what the timeframe controls or its limits, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap. Nothing beyond the raw field name is added.

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 names a specific resource (blood pressure) and enumerates the exact readings returned (systolic/diastolic/pulse), so an agent knows precisely what data this yields. It is effectively the only blood-pressure tool among the siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated. The 'if tracked' qualifier adds useful scope without muddying the purpose.

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 gives a prerequisite ('requires a compatible Garmin blood pressure monitor') and a conditionality hint ('if tracked'), which is adjacent to usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this over related siblings like garmin_health_summary or garmin_heart_rate, and names no alternatives or exclusions. This is prerequisite disclosure, not usage guidance.

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