get_fitnessage_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'get' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing data, or any rate-limit or authentication concerns. This is a meaningful gap for an API tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before the Args list. Each parameter description adds value beyond the schema and there is no extraneous text, though a single-line alternative could be slightly tighter.

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?

It has an output schema, and the description covers the essential usage information: required date format and the behavior of optional details. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read operation these are less critical given the existing structured output.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning by specifying the exact date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifying that 'details' controls whether BMI, RHR, and vigorous-activity breakdowns with targets and suggestions are returned.

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 states the resource ('fitness age data') and a clear action ('get'), so the purpose is easily understood. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling getters, but the resource name is specific enough to avoid confusion in the agent's selection.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned. The only hints are embedded in parameter descriptions rather than a clear use-case statement.

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