get_running_tolerance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default date range (12 weeks, start 84 days ago, end today) and date format (YYYY-MM-DD), which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, nor does it describe any caveats like rate limits or response granularity, though the output schema exists.

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: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact argument list. No filler, every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter get tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the metric means, the default range, and parameter formats. It does not explain return values, but that is handled by the output schema. Minor gaps like timezone or parameter ordering are not critical.

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 does: both parameters are explained with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (84 days ago, today). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it omits constraints like start <= end or timezone handling.

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 metric (running tolerance) with a clarifying definition ('weekly mileage your body tolerates') and a default time range. This distinguishes it from sibling get_* metrics like get_training_load or get_fitness_metrics. However, it does not explicitly mention that it returns a series/list of values, which would strengthen the purpose statement.

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?

Usage is implied by the metric name and description ('running tolerance'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so an agent must infer applicability from the metric domain.

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