garmin_reference

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 that these are static reference catalogs and that query is used for search, but says nothing about return shape, result size, or whether results are cached/stable.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and parenthetical glosses for each list; almost no wasted wording. The dense parenthetical style is slightly harder to scan than a bulleted list would be, but it is efficient.

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 two-parameter reference tool this is mostly adequate, but it silently drops the 'workout_structure' kind and, with no output schema present, gives no indication of what the returned lists look like or how large they are. An agent must call it blind to discover the response shape.

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 only 50%, and the enum values for 'kind' have no per-value descriptions in the schema, so the description genuinely compensates by glossing activity_types, event_types, strength_exercises, and food_serving_units. It also clarifies that 'query' is the search mechanism for the exercise catalog, though it leaves workout_structure and the query behavior for other kinds undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Lookup lists") and enumerates the concrete catalogs available, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like garmin_activities or garmin_food_search. However, it omits the 'workout_structure' value that exists in the kind enum, so the stated purpose does not fully match the tool's capability.

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?

It gives light contextual hints for a couple of kinds ("for activities", "for custom foods", "search with query"), which implies when each list is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to alternative sibling tools for related lookups.

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