garmin_health_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: the output consists of averages over a range and aggregates multiple source tables (daily_summary, sleep), which tells the agent this is a read/aggregation operation. However, it never confirms read-only safety, date format expectations, or any limits.

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, front-loaded sentences that drop straight into scope and then defaults with no filler. The only blemish is the unresolved template placeholder '*days* days', which reads as an artifact rather than intent.

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 simple read aggregation with an output schema, so return-value detail is not strictly required, and the description does cover the range/default mechanics. What is missing and materially useful is differentiation from the many overlapping summary siblings, plus basic date-format expectations.

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 0% and the parameter titles are bare ('Days', 'End Date', 'Start Date'), so the description must compensate and partly does: it explains that omitting the dates falls back to the most recent 'days' window (default 7 per schema). It still omits date format, range bounds, and whether the three parameters interact in other ways.

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 resource and action ('Health overview for a date range') and enumerates the metrics returned (steps, HR, stress, body battery, SpO2, respiration, calories, sleep, training readiness). This is far more concrete than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as garmin_health_snapshot, garmin_week_summary, or garmin_today.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set containing overlapping health-summary tools. The only conditional given ('if start_date/end_date are omitted...') concerns parameter defaults rather than tool selection.

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