get_fitnessage_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. The description only restates the name in Chinese, offering zero information about side effects, required permissions, data mutability, or rate limits. It fails to inform the agent whether this is a read operation or any constraints.

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 short (one word), which is concise, but it is severely underspecified. It sacrifices all informative content for brevity. A 2 reflects that it is not verbose nor confusing, but it fails to earn its place by adding zero value beyond the tool name.

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?

Despite having an output schema and two optional parameters, the description provides no contextual completeness. The agent has no idea what fitness age data means, how to interpret the output, or how the optional parameters affect results. Given the complexity of the domain and many siblings, this is completely inadequate.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the two parameters ('date' and 'details'). The agent gets no insight into what the date parameter expects (e.g., format, allowed values) or what the 'details' boolean does. The schema provides names but no human-readable context.

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 '体适能年龄' is merely a Chinese translation of the tool name ('Fitness Age'). It is a tautology that does not clarify what the tool does—whether it retrieves, calculates, or compares fitness age data. For non-Chinese users, it's opaque.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus any of the 50+ sibling tools, such as 'get_endurance_score' or 'user_summary'. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or alternatives.

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