get_recent_athletics_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a valid input range (7-366 days) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the summary includes, or any output format or limitations, offering only minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded with the key phrase 'trend summary.' The word 'Convenience' adds no technical value and could be removed, but overall it is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the trend summary includes (e.g., metrics, format), but it only provides a time range. It leaves significant gaps about content and behavior, especially given the existence of the more comprehensive sibling get_athletics_trends.

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 schema has one parameter (days) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'last 7 to 366 days,' which implicitly explains the days parameter's purpose (lookback period) and valid range, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it could be more explicit about how the parameter controls the period.

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 says 'Convenience trend summary for the last 7 to 366 days,' which indicates it provides a summary of recent trends over a specified period, matching the tool name. However, it lacks a specific action verb and does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_athletics_trends, leaving its unique purpose unclear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_athletics_trends or other health/performance tools. The word 'convenience' hints at a simplified alternative, but no explicit comparison, exclusions, or when-to-use instructions are provided.

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