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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: only activities with sRPE logged are included, and results are aggregated per day and ISO week. It does not describe empty-result behavior or output format, but this is minor for a read-only summary tool.

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 concise sentences, with the formula and aggregation logic front-loaded and the use case in the second sentence. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the computation, data source, aggregation granularity, and intended use. It would be more complete with a brief note on what the returned summary contains, but the current description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the 'date range' meaning for from/to and the ISO-week aggregation granularity, but it does not clarify inclusivity, boundary handling, or other parameter semantics beyond what the property names and regex already imply.

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 clearly states that the tool computes sRPE training load (Foster AU = sRPE × minutes) summed per day and per ISO week over a date range, using only activities with sRPE logged. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, but the 'Complements TSS' note helps position it relative to TSS-based load reasoning.

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?

'Complements TSS: use it to reason about total load including non-metered sports, monotony and ramp' gives explicit when-to-use guidance. It lacks an explicit exclusion or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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