garmin_load

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: it reports multi-week trends normalized to the athlete's own norm and excludes single-day readiness. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences, densely packed with domain-specific information. Front-loaded with the core output and followed by usage and exclusions. No wasted words.

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's complexity, output schema availability, and sibling context are fully addressed. The description covers the key domain, use cases, and alternatives, while the existence of an output schema eliminates the need to explain return values. Parameters are fully documented in the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on the parameters (weeks, anchor_date), but the schema already documents them adequately. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'load' with a clear resource: multi-week training load metrics (CTL/ATL/TSB, ramp rate, ACWR, etc.). It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools (garmin_brief, garmin_recovery), making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to call ('am I training too much', ramp/taper dosing, periodization) and what it is NOT for (single-day readiness, overtraining physiology), naming the alternative tools. This provides unambiguous usage guidance.

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