Get Athlete Power Curves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clarifies that the output is power per duration in watts and mentions the seasonal/custom scope, but it does not disclose response format, defaults (though defaults are in schema), any read-only guarantee, or interaction between season flags and custom dates. It is adequately descriptive but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the essential purpose and scope options without wasted words. Every clause contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

The tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify return values and parameter interactions. It explains the core output concept but does not specify the response structure or how custom dates combine with season flags. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: retrieving power curves (best power per duration) for an athlete, with scope options for current/last season or custom date ranges. It uses a specific verb (Ambil/get) and resource (power curves), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on activities or streams.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need an athlete's power curve for a season or custom date range. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focus is unambiguous. Lacks a 'when not to use' or alternative tool reference.

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