fitness_recovery_vs_training

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it requires Apple data for recovery and returns a table or error string. It does not contradict annotations but also does not elaborate on behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loads the main purpose. The parameter list follows clearly. One could argue for slightly more structure, but it remains efficient without wasted words.

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?

The tool's purpose, inputs, output format, and prerequisites are covered. The 'Returns' line specifies a table by day or an error, which is adequate given no output schema. However, it could detail the output columns for greater completeness.

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 repeats parameter names and formats already documented in the input schema. With schema coverage effectively high (the schema includes descriptions for start, end, and response_format), the description adds no new semantic 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 the tool's purpose: to cross-reference daily training data from Garmin and Apple with recovery metrics (HRV, sleep, resting HR). The verb 'Cruza' (cross) and the specific resources (training + recovery) make it distinct from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics.

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 gives concrete use cases (correlating HRV drops after hard days, worse sleep after strength days) and a prerequisite (Apple data imported). It implies when to use this tool over others, though it does not explicitly list alternative tools for specific purposes.

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