get_cardio_load_history

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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe (read-only). The description only states the aggregation type, which is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides a usage context. Highly efficient.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema. The description does not describe the return format, data structure, or any example output. For a tool that returns aggregated historical data, details like the data fields or time series format would be necessary for an agent to correctly process the response.

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 100%, with parameters 'count' and 'period_type' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves historical cardio load data aggregated by days or months. It distinguishes from siblings like get_cardio_load (which likely provides current or single-point data) and get_cardio_load_range (which may provide a range). The verb 'get' and resource 'historical cardio load data' are specific.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for long-term training load analysis.' This tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, which would improve guidance.

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