Get daily wellness summaries (date range)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real value: the `{ data: [...] }` response envelope, one entry per day, the 365-day hard cap, and a warning that a year of data is very long. It stops short of anything about rate limits or error behavior, keeping it just under the top mark.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, the size/cap caveat, then the sibling pointer -- well front-loaded. Slight redundancy between 'Maximum range: 365 days' and 'a year of data is very long' costs it the top score.

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 no output schema, the description supplies both the response envelope and a practical sizing warning, and it documents the date-range constraint. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to decide against it in favor of the single-day sibling.

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%, so both parameters' format, inclusivity, and the 365-day span limit are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the range cap and the 'inclusive' semantics but adds little that isn't structured, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb plus resource ('Get daily wellness summaries') and enumerates the contained metrics (steps, calories, heart rate, Body Battery, floors), which leaves no ambiguity about what is returned. It also contrasts itself with the near-identical sibling garmin_get_daily_summary, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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?

States explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer a few weeks or months per call unless the whole year is truly needed, and use garmin_get_daily_summary for a single day. Both the alternative tool and the condition selecting it are named.

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