Get power curves

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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, open-world call, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond them: the shape of each returned curve (`secs`/`values`) and the non-obvious default that the bulk `activities` lookup map is stripped unless fields ["*"] is passed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence carries distinct information (scope, response shape, default field filtering). No padding, though the abrupt parameter references ('`secs` and `values`') assume the reader has already seen a response.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and does explain the curve structure and the omitted activities map. It leaves minor gaps, such as what curve windows ('42d', 'all') mean or how dates bound the aggregation, but the essentials for calling the tool correctly are present.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including field selection and defaults; baseline 3 applies. The description's note about the omitted `activities` map adds a small amount of meaning to `fields`, but it largely restates what the schema's ["*"] wording already conveys.

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 and resource ('Get the athlete's best mean maximal power curves') and adds the scope 'across activities of one sport', which implicitly separates it from the single-activity sibling get_activity_power_curve. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction from the 'across activities' phrasing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The only conditional text ('unless you pass fields ["*"]') describes a parameter behavior, not a situation for choosing this tool over get_activity_power_curve or get_activity_best_efforts.

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