grade_binned_pace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: run and walk are never pooled, with the rationale for why pooling misleads. It omits other key behavior — what empty-string/zero defaults mean (all data vs none), permission needs, and how a 'selection' is bounded.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and tightly sized — two short sentences with no filler. The section-number prefix and slightly verbose second sentence cost a point.

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 values needn't be explained, but for a 7-parameter, annotation-free analytical tool the description leaves the entire parameter surface and the default/empty-value behavior unexplained. Only the non-pooling caveat is covered.

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?

Seven parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It mentions a 'split_type' that is not even a parameter, and never clarifies run_type, direction, last_n, or the date/cluster filters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific computation (pace binned by grade, split by split_type) scoped to a selection, which is distinguishable from siblings like cadence_by_grade and hill_pace. The '§6.2' reference and the absence of a real verb keep it from being a crisp 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'over a selection' hints at when it applies, and the run/walk warning explains interpretation rather than tool selection. No sibling is named as an alternative (e.g., when to choose this vs. hill_pace or cadence_by_grade).

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