get_weekly_intensity_minutes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does state that the tool returns aggregated data and includes moderate/vigorous intensity, but it does not disclose read-only status, edge cases, or behavior such as how end_date is handled at boundaries. It is adequate but not rich.

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-loaded: it states the purpose first, then gives return details and parameter explanations. The Args section is directly useful and there is little wasted text.

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 two-parameter read-only getter with an output schema present, the description covers the essential semantics: what is returned, the date anchor, and the valid weeks range. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by specifying end_date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and weeks semantics including default (4) and max (52). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema fields.

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 names a specific resource ('weekly intensity minutes'), distinguishes moderate and vigorous data, and specifies the time window ('number of weeks ending at end_date'). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling getter tools.

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 implies use when weekly intensity minutes are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternative getters or mention any exclusions. Context is clear but no dedicated usage guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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