get_training_readiness

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 helpfully lists what it returns: readiness score, HRV status, sleep quality, recovery time, and training load, making clear this is a read-oriented tool. It does not cover edge cases, error behavior, or rate limits, but for a simple getter the returned-fields list adds meaningful transparency.

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?

Two compact sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return fields are listed in an efficient second sentence.

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 an output schema is present and there is only one simple parameter, the description covers the essential elements: purpose, date format, and returned metrics. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on how this differs from closely related training-status tools, but this does not block 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly provides the date format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and ties the parameter to the tool's purpose. Since there is only one parameter, this sufficiently compensates for the otherwise empty schema; additional validation details like ranges or timezone behavior would be a bonus.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('training readiness score') with a clear temporal qualifier ('for a date'). It distinguishes this tool from similar health metric tools like get_training_status by naming the exact object being retrieved.

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 phrase 'for a date (YYYY-MM-DD)' implies a point-in-time lookup rather than a recent-data or list retrieval, which provides some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related siblings like get_training_status or get_daily_summary, and no exclusions are stated.

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