pl_get_pmc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the date format and timezone, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how data is aggregated, or what the response structure contains. The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description adds only modest behavioral detail.

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 that front-loads the resource and immediately provides the critical date/timezone context. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only chart tool, the description covers the essential input semantics (date format and timezone) and the output schema exists to document return values. However, with no annotations and no explicit read-only or usage guidance, an agent is left to infer safety and when to choose this tool over siblings. It is adequate but not complete.

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 explains that dates are YYYY-MM-DD and Europe/Berlin, which adds meaning to start_date and end_date beyond the bare schema. However, it does not clarify whether the range is inclusive, how far back data is available, or any constraints on the date values.

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 states a specific resource ('Performance management chart') and the data it contains (CTL/ATL/TSB/TSS per day), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_status or pl_get_workouts. It lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the tool name supplies that and the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies usage by specifying the date range and timezone, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no exclusions or conditions, so an agent must infer that this is the chart-specific tool from the resource name.

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