query_goals_and_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's additional context ('based on recent training') adds mild value but does not significantly deepen behavioral understanding. No contradictions.

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 crisp sentences with no wasted words. The verb is front-loaded, and the second sentence elaborates efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 existing output schema and simple boolean parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It could mention that data is user-specific, but overall completeness is high given the supporting structured fields.

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?

All three boolean parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), achieving the baseline. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond listing the return categories, which is already implied by the parameter 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 clearly states the tool returns 'goals, personal records, and race predictions', using a specific verb ('Get') and identifying distinct resources. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other data types like activities or metrics.

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 context (when you need goals/records/predictions) but provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. It's adequate but lacks the proactive differentiation that would elevate it.

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