tp_get_metrics

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get health metrics' without disclosing whether it is read-only (implied but not stated), any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no data exists. The athlete parameter for coach accounts is only in the schema, not the description.

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 sentence that directly states the action and scope. There is no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected returns or behavioral nuances. It does not mention what 'health metrics' include, how they are returned, or any caveats. Given the presence of many sibling tools, this description is insufficiently complete for an agent to select it correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the date-range scope. It does not explain the relationship between start_date, end_date, and the optional athlete parameter, but the schema already covers this.

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 says 'Get health metrics for a date range', which uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('health metrics') with a date-range scope. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like tp_get_fitness or tp_get_weekly_summary, as 'health metrics' is vague and could overlap with them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided. The only hint is the date-range scope, but it doesn't clarify why one would choose this over tp_get_fitness or tp_get_weekly_summary.

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