garmin_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavioral value: that a single-course result includes waypoints, which hints at return payload depth. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or how many courses a list returns.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then the two modes; there is no wasted wording. It is slightly fragmentary ('the list, or one course') rather than a clean sentence, which keeps it from a 5.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers both call modes and hints at what a single-course result contains. The main gap is return shape for the list mode, which has no output schema to fall back on, so it is not quite fully complete.

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% and the schema itself states 'Omit to list all courses', so parameter meaning is already carried by structured data. The description's 'one course with its waypoints' loosely reinforces that course_id selects a single detailed record but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 the resource precisely ('Saved courses (routes)') and distinguishes the two retrieval modes: the full list, or a single course with its waypoints. It lacks an explicit verb, but the dual-mode framing makes the tool's function clear enough to separate it from write-oriented siblings like garmin_upload_course.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing suggests calling it to browse saved courses or to fetch one, but it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as garmin_upload_course or garmin_activity, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the call pattern but gets no routing guidance.

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