get_endurance_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only repeats the tool name in Chinese and fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what date-range constraints apply, or what the output schema contains.

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 extremely short (two characters), but this under-specification is not conciseness—it fails to provide any useful content. A concise description should convey critical information in few words, not merely repeat the name in another language.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, 2 optional parameters, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It should explain what the endurance score represents, how the date parameters affect the result, and how it relates to sibling tools like get_hill_score.

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%, yet the description does not compensate by explaining the purpose or format of the start_date and end_date parameters. Without any parameter documentation, an agent cannot know how to format dates or what date range is valid.

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 is '耐力分数', which is the Chinese translation of 'endurance score'. This is a tautology—it simply restates the tool name in another language without specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves, calculates, or returns a score). The sibling context shows many data retrieval tools (e.g., get_hill_score, sleep, resting_hr), so the description fails to distinguish this tool's specific verb and resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hill_score or user_summary. It lacks any context about prerequisites, recommended input ranges, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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