get_endurance_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of specifying behavior. It indicates a read operation (getting data) but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, using a single sentence plus a brief arg list. Every word is purposeful and there is no fluff.

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 date-range retrieval, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves out details about the output format, units, or any filtering options. Given its simplicity, it does not mislead, but it lacks the completeness that would fully prepare an agent for 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?

The description adds format details (YYYY-MM-DD) for both start_date and end_date that are not in the schema. This clarifies the expected input, though it does not specify whether dates are inclusive or how timezones are handled.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'endurance score data' with a date range scope. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other metrics like steps, heart rate, or training readiness.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any context about date inclusivity, timezone handling, or typical use cases. It is not misleading but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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