Strength log

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: local decryption, newest-first ordering, no partner fan-out, and detailed coverage-block semantics including more_available, oldest_available, and the warning not to report a limit-shaped window as data extent. No contradiction with 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?

The description is long but dense; every sentence adds either scope, output-shape guidance, or a coverage warning that would otherwise be unguessable. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and keeps advanced warning details at the end.

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 the tool's coverage-block complexity and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete: it covers return contents, coverage meaning, limit interaction, and interpretation pitfalls. The only minor omission is the 'fresh' parameter, which is optional with a default and does not prevent correct use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries parameter documentation. It explicitly explains limit_days ('cap how many sessions return') and gives practical meaning to limit through the coverage discussion ('your limit left behind', 're-read with a larger limit'). However, the 'fresh' parameter is never explained, so parameter coverage is strong but incomplete.

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 opening sentence names the exact resource ('recent strength-training sessions'), the operation ('Decrypt'), the processing location ('locally'), and ordering ('newest first'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by saying HealthKit's workout type cannot carry this exercise-level detail and noting it is owner-only.

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?

The description gives clear context: it is for manually logged Vaultbeat strength sessions, owner-only, and says to join date against sleep/HRV/weight for training-load analysis. It implicitly contrasts with HealthKit workout data and write siblings, but it never explicitly names an alternative tool (e.g., get_workouts) or states a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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