get_athlete_power_curves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that the tool uses FFT power computation, reports values in watts, and returns best power for selected durations. It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but 'Get' and the stated purpose strongly imply a read-only operation.

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 well structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise behavioral note, and an Args block. It is front-loaded with the key facts and every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, computation method, units, and most parameters. The main gaps are the undocumented include_normalised parameter and lack of explicit guidance on auth/athlete identification, but overall an agent can call this tool effectively from the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents most parameters with helpful details: defaults, example values, allowed location filters, date format, and the mutual requirement between start_date and end_date. However, it omits explicit descriptions of include_normalised, athlete_id, and api_key, though those are largely inferable from their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('power curves for an athlete from Intervals.icu'), and clearly states the output: best power output for selected durations across specified time periods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_activities or get_activity_raw without ambiguity.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for retrieving power-curve data for an athlete, not for activity lists or raw streams. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is concrete enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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