fitness_weekly_summary

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

Adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that the tool returns a string summary or error message, and explains the default date range logic. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; description complements this with operational details.

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 clear one-sentence summary, a technical prerequisite, then an explicit Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 tool that returns a string summary, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and output format. Despite having an external output schema, the description self-contains return type information, making it fully complete for selection and invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is listed as 0%, the description actually explains all parameters in the Args section: start (format), end (optional with default behavior), and response_format (markdown/json). This adds significant clarity beyond the schema's simple type constraints.

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?

Description clearly states it generates a weekly summary of training and recovery by combining Garmin and Apple data. It specifies the data sources (activities, km, hours from Garmin; sleep, HRV, resting HR, steps, strength from Apple), setting it apart from siblings that only focus on one source.

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?

Explicitly states that Apple data import is required for the recovery part, giving a clear condition for proper usage. However, it does not mention alternative tools among siblings for when Apple data is unavailable.

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