get_vo2max_trend

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses smoothing, gradual updates, normal noise threshold (<0.5), trend-window recommendation, and how missing historical values are handled.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core purpose is front-loaded, followed by interpretation guidance, behavioral caveats, range limits, and argument format. No filler or redundant restatement of 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return shape. It covers behavior, edge cases, valid ranges, and usage context, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds YYYY-MM-DD format for both parameters and useful range constraints (recommended 4-12 weeks, max 90 days). It doesn't mention inclusivity or date ordering, but the names and date-range framing make the core semantics clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get VO2 max trend over a date range.' It explicitly names the data source (Garmin's FirstBeat algorithm) and the use case, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling trend tools like get_hrv_trend or get_training_load_trend.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context: track fitness gains over weeks or months, with interpretation guidance for flat/declining VO2 max. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is specific enough.

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