get_endurance_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the score may be absent for a given day due to qualifying activity requirements, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention read-only status, potential errors, or other operational details beyond that single caveat, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a short explanation, and a parameter block. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely details the result structure), the description covers purpose, parameter, and a key edge case (missing values). It might benefit from elaborating what 'activity-type contributors' means or the score's range, but the core functionality is sufficiently complete.

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?

The description fully explains the single parameter: 'date' in YYYY-MM-DD format with a default of today. This is essential because the input schema only lists the property without any documentation. The description adds all needed semantic meaning.

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 clearly states the tool returns the Garmin endurance score with activity-type contributors. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'endurance score' is specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hill_score and get_training_load by focusing on a distinct metric.

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 explains that the score only updates after qualifying activities, implying that on some days no value may exist. This gives context for when to expect data and why results may be absent, though it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives. The context makes appropriate use clear.

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