get_training_readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the score range and contributing factors but lacks details on staleness, required permissions, or whether it modifies state. It is a read-only metric, but more context on computation timing would help.

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 brief and front-loaded with the score range and factors. Every sentence is meaningful. The args section is clearly separated and concise.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return structure. It mentions contributing factors, which is useful. With only one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete, though it could hint at what the output looks like.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds value by specifying the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (today). This compensates for the lack of schema description and provides clear parameter meaning.

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 it returns a 'daily training readiness score (0-100) with contributing factors' and specifies the factors (sleep, HRV, recovery time, training load). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that return individual metrics like get_sleep or get_training_load.

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 the tool is for an overall readiness assessment but does not explicitly state when to use it over its siblings. No 'when not to use' or 'consider using X instead' guidance is provided, though the sibling list is available.

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