get_shoes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavior, notably the 650 km fallback limit when Garmin has none set and the fact that pairs near end-of-life are flagged. That fallback rule is non-obvious domain logic an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then the per-pair payload, then usage prompts — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is slightly long because it enumerates return fields that the existing output schema already documents, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 zero parameters, a present output schema, and rich annotations, the only things the description must supply are the domain rules — the 650 km default, the end-of-life flagging, and how retired pairs appear. It supplies all three, so an agent can call and interpret the result without further guidance.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call returning the whole shoe roster rather than hinting at hidden filters.

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?

Names a specific resource (the user's running shoes) and states exactly what is reported per pair: km so far, runs, limit, km left, recent km, last worn date, and default-assignment status. No sibling tool touches shoe/gear data, so the resource alone cleanly separates it from get_activities, get_fitness, and the rest.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering questions — "do I need new shoes" and "which shoes do I run in most" — which map directly to the reported fields and make selection easy. It does not state any when-not condition or name an alternative, but no sibling overlaps this domain, so the omission is minor.

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