get_endurance_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates that this is a read operation and that the returned value is an endurance score reflecting aerobic fitness over time, but it does not disclose semantics for end_date omission, date-range inclusivity, computation basis, or data availability.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and date format are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful context about what an endurance score represents.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two flat parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. Still, the lack of annotations, absence of usage guidance, and ambiguous handling of the optional end_date leave an agent with a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful date-format information (YYYY-MM-DD) and implies that start_date and end_date define a range. However, it does not clarify the meaning of end_date=null or whether a single-date request is valid.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('endurance score'), and clearly scopes it to a date range. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_vo2max or get_training_status, but the tool name and description make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling data-retrieval tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisities, or alternative references; usage must be inferred from the name and general phrasing.

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