get_running_tolerance_trend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and explains the output metrics (tolerance_km, acute_load_km, distance_km, load_ratio) and the meaning of load_ratio. It also discloses the maximum date range and the reason: 'the limit protects output size, not request volume.' It does not mention error handling or missing data, but covers the main behavior.

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 and logically organized: purpose statement, output definitions, aggregation guidance, and range limits. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers the key output fields, the effect of the aggregation parameter, and the date-range limits. It provides enough context for an agent to decide whether to use this tool and how to set parameters, even though it doesn't include a full output schema.

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 explains the date format and the meaning of aggregation: 'Weekly aggregation (default) gives a compact multi-month view; daily gives day-to-day resolution for a shorter window.' It also provides recommended and maximum ranges for the date parameters, exceeding the bare schema definitions.

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 action: 'Get Running Tolerance trend over a date range.' It specifies the resource (Running Tolerance trend) and differentiates it from the singular get_running_tolerance by emphasizing trend over a date range.

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?

It provides concrete guidance on aggregation choice: 'Weekly aggregation (default) gives a compact multi-month view; daily gives day-to-day resolution for a shorter window.' It also recommends a range: 'Recommended range: 4-12 weeks.' However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools such as get_running_tolerance or get_training_load_trend.

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