load_focus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral note — that the values are 'approximate' — which warns the agent not to treat these as exact measurements. It says nothing about units, aggregation window semantics, or what happens when data is missing, so the added context is real but thin.

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?

One sentence that puts the resource name and the three output categories first, with the time-window qualifier last. No filler, though the awkward line break and the 'approximate' hedge sitting ambiguously before the label slightly blunt the front-loading.

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 output schema, the description does the minimum by enumerating the three load categories, and readOnly annotations cover safety. But it never states units, whether values are absolute load or relative percentages, or how the 28-day default interacts with returned data — gaps an agent would notice when interpreting results.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter alone, and it does clarify that `days` is the lookback window over which load is aggregated. However, it omits the default of 28 and any guidance on sensible ranges or what an overly large window does, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a concrete resource (Garmin Load Focus) and decomposes it precisely into low aerobic, high aerobic and anaerobic training load. That's specific enough to know what comes back, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `training_load` or `power_profile`, which an agent will plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus `training_load`, `fitness_profile`, or `weekly_report`, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the words 'training load,' leaving the agent to guess among several overlapping siblings.

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