Get menstrual cycle summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: a data-availability precondition (cycle must be tracked in Garmin Connect) and conditional output (pregnancy info only 'when pregnancy tracking is on'), both of which affect interpretation of results.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the domain ('Women's health:') and the action, then moves through return fields to the data-availability caveat. It is slightly list-heavy but every clause carries content; no filler.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, including the conditional pregnancy data. The main omission is sibling differentiation against garmin_get_menstrual_cycle_day, which leaves an agent to guess between two closely named tools.

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 100%, so the parameter is fully documented with format and local-calendar semantics. The description restates the key idea ('the cycle that contains a date') but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('get the menstrual cycle that contains a date') and enumerates the returned content (phase, fertile window, ovulation date, pregnancy info). It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling garmin_get_menstrual_cycle_day, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Implicit usage is derivable from 'get the menstrual cycle that contains a date', and the prerequisite 'Only has data if the user tracks their cycle in Garmin Connect' is stated. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this versus garmin_get_menstrual_cycle_day, and no exclusions or fallback behavior.

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