get_hill_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the score combines strength and endurance, requires qualifying climbing efforts, and returns an empty result via `note` rather than an error. This is valuable contextual insight beyond a simple 'get' operation.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief explanatory note, and an Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting improves readability.

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 an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose, the empty-result behavior, and parameter semantics, making it complete for a simple retrieve-by-date tool.

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 meaning beyond the bare schema by stating the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and saying it defaults to today. However, the schema default is null, making the 'Defaults to today' claim ambiguous or potentially inconsistent with the schema.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a Garmin hill score for a date, and explains that it combines strength and endurance components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endurance_score and other metric-specific getters.

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 when to use this tool (to get a hill score) and provides useful context about qualifying climbing efforts and empty results for flat-terrain athletes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus other metrics.

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