get_readiness

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the aggregation content, the default-to-today behavior, and the enumeration of the readiness signal values (ready_for_hard / easy / rest_or_very_easy) with reasons. It doesn't mention degraded cases such as missing provider data, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the enumerated payload and the pairing advice. Dense and largely waste-free, though the long comma-laden enumeration of fields is slightly harder to scan than a structured list.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety, so remaining burden is light. The description covers purpose, payload contents, and signal semantics well; the only gap is the accepted date format for the lone parameter.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it. It does say the tool is 'for a day' and defaults to today, which explains intent and default behavior, but it never states the accepted format for 'day' (e.g., ISO date), leaving the only input partially specified.

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 resource and scope ('Recovery and readiness for a day, default today') and then enumerates the concrete data it returns: readiness score, limiting factors, sleep, HRV vs baseline, resting HR, Body Battery, last hard session. This is far more than the name restates and lets an agent distinguish it from get_training_summary or get_progress.

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 routes the agent: 'Pair it with get_coach_plan to decide today's session', which names the sibling and the downstream purpose. It gives clear context for use but no explicit when-not condition or exclusion rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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