Get exercise diary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-data profile is covered. The description adds which data categories are returned (cardio + strength), but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or auth requirements; adequate but not rich given the lowered bar.

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 short lines, purpose first, parameter format second, zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies what is needed: what is read, the scope, and the date format/default. Only the lack of sibling disambiguation keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the sole 'date' property carries no description in the schema, so the description's 'YYYY-MM-DD (default: today)' is genuinely additive meaning that the agent cannot get elsewhere. It could go further (timezone, date range limits) but it compensates for the coverage gap well.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (MyFitnessPal exercise diary) and even scopes the content to cardio + strength for a single day. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling fitness_get_exercise_entries, which an agent would need to disambiguate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Only usage hint is the default date behavior; there is no statement of when to prefer this over fitness_get_day or fitness_get_exercise_entries, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case from the name.

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