Get wellness activity summaries (date range)

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is scope and payload disclosure: the returned fields and the inclusive date semantics. It does not discuss pagination, result limits, or auth for a potentially large date range, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the exclusion and alternative. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, type, notes, timestamps, summary values, time in zones), and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool, nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, with both dates documented for format, inclusiveness, and local-calendar semantics. The description's "Both dates are inclusive" reinforces the schema but adds no new parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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 and resource ("Get wellness activities") with concrete examples (breathwork, meditation, relaxation) and an explicit scope boundary: non-fitness sessions recorded on the device. It also names the sibling to use for fitness activities, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says what this tool covers and what it does not ("Fitness activities such as runs or rides are not here"), then names the alternative, garmin_search_activities. Both the inclusion and exclusion conditions are stated, not inferred.

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