get_power_zones_for_sport

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the sport value is upper-cased and validated, without saying what happens on an invalid sport, which sports are accepted, or what the response contains. Minimal value beyond structured fields.

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?

One short sentence, so nothing is wasted, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence spends its length on a sibling reference instead of the tool's function. Front-loading is absent because there is no purpose statement to front-load.

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 getter with no output schema and a 0%-documented required parameter, the description should explain what is returned (zones, sport scoping) and which sport values are legal. Instead it covers only input normalization, leaving the agent guessing about results and valid inputs.

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 carries the full burden for the single `sport` parameter. It partially helps by stating the value is upper-cased and validated, but it never lists valid sports or the validation rules, and it points to a differently-named tool (`getFunctionalThresholdPowerRange` vs the snake_case siblings) that the agent must mentally map.

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 never states what the tool does — it only describes how the `sport` argument is normalized, delegating meaning to the tool name alone. It also fails to distinguish this from the sibling `get_power_zones`, which is presumably the unfiltered counterpart. This is closer to a parameter note than a purpose statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of how this differs from `get_power_zones` or `get_functional_threshold_power_range`, and no preconditions. The only hint is a cross-reference used to explain validation behavior, not to route the agent between tools.

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