get_training_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it adds real value by disclosing that the ACWR source may be Garmin's EWMA or a less-reliable self-computed fallback and that VO2max change is only reported when the value actually varied. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'picture' and the absence of any mutation language make that clear enough.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core scope front-loaded and the source/fallback caveats kept in a separate short note. Every sentence adds information; there is no repetition of schema content.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the meaningful behavioral caveats (source reliability and conditional VO2max reporting). It stops short of being fully complete because it doesn't explain when period_days should be customized, though the schema's default and range largely compensate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single period_days parameter is already documented with range and default. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the implicit weekly granularity, which matches the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 opens with 'Training-load picture' and lists exactly what is included (ACWR with source, Garmin training status, VO2max with change, weekly load buckets), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_vo2max_history or get_training_readiness, so it misses the top bar for sibling differentiation.

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 content list gives a strong implied use case: any request for a training-load overview or ACWR. It offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, so an agent still has to infer the boundary against get_training_readiness, get_recovery_summary, or get_vo2max_history.

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