icu_get_fitness_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it provides interpretation and recommendations, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., data recency, computation cost). Since the safety profile is fully covered by annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, highly concise. The first sentence lists the key metrics and outputs, the second provides example queries. No redundant or superfluous information.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent), and an output schema (presence noted), the description is fully adequate. It tells what the tool returns and when to use it, leaving no essential gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema carries full coverage (100%). Baseline 4 applies; no additional parameter description is needed. The description does not add parameter details, but that's acceptable given no parameters.

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 states the tool retrieves a fitness summary (CTL, ATL, TSB, ramp rate) with interpretation and recommendations. It uses specific verbs ('Get') and resource ('athlete's current fitness / fatigue / form snapshot'), distinguishing it from siblings like wellness data or athlete profile.

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 explicit use cases: 'how's my form?', 'am I overtrained?', training-status checks. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or contrast with siblings, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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