recovery_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists the five factors considered (sleep, body battery, training load ratio, nutrition compliance) and mentions default date behavior. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, the name 'check' and output schema imply no side effects. Good transparency for a read-only assessment.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an argument description. Every sentence adds value, starting with the primary question and listing factors. No wasted words.

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 output schema likely provides return structure, the description covers input and factors sufficiently. It could benefit from an approximate output format or example, but not essential. Complete enough 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?

The single parameter `date_str` is fully described with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default value (today). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides necessary meaning beyond the schema. Could add constraints (e.g., date range), but adequate for a simple optional parameter.

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's purpose: a readiness assessment combining multiple health factors. It uses a specific verb ('assess') and resource ('readiness'), and distinguishes itself from siblings which focus on individual metrics (e.g., sleep_analysis, garmin_status).

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 implies usage context through the question 'should you train hard today?' and lists the combined factors, indicating when to use this holistic check instead of individual tools. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling list provides clear context. Fine for a concise description.

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