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, and it does disclose the meaningful behavior: the score is derived by the device from sleep, recovery time, HRV and recent load, and it functions as a go/hold gate. It does not mention read-only safety, date defaults, or return shape, but for a single-date read that is a modest gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the derivation, then the purpose. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what the score means and when to consult it. Missing only minor details such as the default-to-today behavior and confirmation that it is a non-mutating read.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single date parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and the today default. The description adds only "for a date", so the baseline 3 is correct — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (get training readiness for a date) and defines what the value actually is — a device-derived score from sleep, recovery time, HRV and recent load. That is far more than a restatement of the name, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling get_training_status.

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?

"A go / hold check before a hard session" gives a clear decision context for when to reach for this tool rather than a raw metric tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_hrv, get_training_status) or stating exclusions, so it is context without routing.

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