get_training_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no note on what the 'contributing factors' include, no indication that raw=true returns full Garmin JSON (that lives only in the schema), and no failure/empty-data behavior for days with no wearable data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy of information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the read-only nature is annotated. However, for a tool sitting in a dense cluster of health-metric siblings, the description provides no routing signal or domain vocabulary for what 'contributing factors' comprises, leaving the agent to choose between several similar tools on name alone.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there (day as YYYY-MM-DD defaulting to today, raw toggling Garmin's full JSON). The description only echoes the day dimension ('for a day') and says nothing about raw, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 the resource (training readiness score and contributing factors) and its granularity (a day), but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no explicit distinction from the closely-named sibling get_training_status. An agent can infer it's a read of readiness data, but must guess how it differs from adjacent readiness/status 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to call this instead of get_training_status, get_body_battery, or get_hrv, all of which touch recovery/readiness concepts. The only implicit cue is 'for a day', which is already encoded in the schema default.

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