get_training_readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the tool returns a score and factors, but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or the scope of data (e.g., today only vs historical). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear parameter documentation. It's concise at two sentences plus a parameter block, but the parameter documentation could be more integrated.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere) and a single optional parameter, the description sufficiently covers the main purpose and usage. It does not explain edge cases like missing data for a selected day, but overall meets the needs of an information retrieval tool.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the 'day' parameter beyond the schema (which only provides a default and type). It clarifies accepted formats like 'today', 'yesterday', or a date string '2026-08-18'. Given 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this is helpful guidance.

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 Garmin's training readiness score and identifies contributing factors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_hrv, get_sleep, or get_daily_summary by focusing specifically on readiness assessment.

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 implies the primary use case (assessing training readiness) but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_body_battery or get_daily_summary for similar recovery/readiness questions. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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