garmin_compare

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the return shape ('deltas and percentage changes'). It does not confirm this is a read-only operation, nor mention permissions, rate limits, or any constraints. Since an output schema already exists, restating the return content adds little.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the third sentence partly duplicates what the output schema already conveys.

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?

For a comparison tool with an output schema, the definition is close to complete, but it omits the two things an agent most needs: the date format for four required string params and the distinction from garmin_trends. With no annotations to fall back on, these gaps matter.

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 0% and the four date parameters carry no format specification in either schema or description. The phrase 'two date ranges' confirms the intent of the start/end pairs, but nothing explains the expected date string format (e.g. ISO vs epoch), leaving a real gap for this all-required parameter set.

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?

States a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('two date ranges across all health metrics'), so the agent understands exactly what it does. It does not differentiate from siblings like garmin_trends or garmin_week_summary, which appear to cover overlapping time-comparison territory.

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?

'Useful for week-over-week, month-over-month, or year-over-year analysis' implies the intended context, so usage is inferable rather than stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (garmin_trends) that an agent would have to choose between.

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