get_long_ride_fatigue_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, and the description still adds real behavioral context: cost profile (one stream call per ride plus 1-4, one more per id with activity_ids), that results are statistics only with small samples flagged and no verdict, and how phases are compared to the phase before the first threshold. This is exactly the beyond-annotation disclosure the dimension rewards.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the purpose leads, then phases, scope, aggregation, safety/cost and pointers to alternatives are layered in clearly separated sentences. It is long for a description, but nearly every clause carries distinct operational information rather than filler.

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 14-parameter analytic tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, defaults, aggregation behavior, statistical caveats, cost, and pointers to the method guide and sibling tool. Output format is governed by the detail_level/output_format parameters rather than needing prose, so the definition is close to complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description restates a few defaults (75-85% FTP, 750/1500 kJ, limit 6 max 12) but adds little parameter meaning the schema does not, beyond the conceptual framing of thresholds and phases.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: how long rides change at matched power as work accumulates, measured via HR, W/bpm, cadence and stamina before vs after work thresholds. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (get_fatigue_resistance for fresh-vs-fatigued power curves), so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context (steady segments of a power band, before vs after work thresholds) and points to the alternative (get_fatigue_resistance) plus a method guide (intervals://methods/fatigue via get_guide). It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the alternative mapping covers the main disambiguation need.

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