get_endurance_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that this is a 'Get' operation for data between dates; it does not disclose data availability, timezone behavior, response edge cases, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic read-only implication of the name.

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 concise and front-loaded: the purpose is stated in one sentence followed by a compact Args block. There is no redundant prose, and the argument details earn their place by adding the date format not present in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values and structure are covered. The tool is simple with two required string parameters, no enums, and no nested objects, and the description provides enough range and format context for a correct call. It lacks sibling routing guidance, but that is more of a usage-guidelines concern.

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 documents both required parameters and adds the important YYYY-MM-DD format for each, while 'between dates' clarifies that they define a range. It does not specify inclusivity or timezone, but for two simple date parameters this is meaningful added guidance.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('endurance score data') and specifies that the result is date-bounded. It is distinguishable from siblings by naming the endurance score resource, though it does not explicitly contrast it with similar metrics like get_hill_score or get_training_effect.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description simply states what the tool does without helping the agent decide between this and related score/metric tools.

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