get_weekly_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes further: it discloses the one-API-call cost, that sessions without HR are still counted, that other athletes' rows are ignored, that weeks run Monday-to-Monday, and that the current week uses the latest day with data. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the read-only/one-call qualifier, then a scope paragraph, then the alternative and the method pointer. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the only mild cost is the cramped, run-on feel of the middle block.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly (per-week metrics, sport split, HR-zone time, CTL/ATL/form/ramp). It also references the method guide for deeper semantics, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly unstated.

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 schema already documents start_date, end_date and athlete_id, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying ISO-week alignment (weeks start Monday) and the current-week semantics, which clarify how the date range is interpreted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('per-week overview from Intervals.icu's athlete summary') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (sessions, moving time, distance, load, sport split, HR-zone time, CTL/ATL/form/ramp). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_training_summary, so an agent can choose 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?

The closing sentence names the alternative and the exact conditions that select it: 'Grouping by month, sport or gear, separate power/HR/pace loads and custom fields: get_training_summary.' It also frames the tool as the quick one-API-call option, giving a clear when-to-use signal.

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