get_enduraw_form_fatigue

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by warning that the call can return a subscription-requirement status instead of data (Starter tier), which is a non-obvious failure mode an agent must handle. However, it says nothing about authentication, caching, pagination, or how large a history is returned before truncation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and metrics, with no filler. The endpoint path is somewhat verbose for an agent's purposes but does support verifiability, so the cost is minor.

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?

This is a simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description covers what the tool fetches and a key non-data return case. What is missing is any indication of the response shape (per-day series vs summary) or granularity, which matters for an agent that must decide how to consume the curves.

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%, with both `days` and `sport` fully documented (including defaults and allowed values), so the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase "across the athlete's history" loosely gestures at the time window, but the description adds no new meaning about how `days` and `sport` interact with the returned curves.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Fetches") plus a named modelling resource and enumerates the metrics returned (CTL, ATL, TSB, training load curves), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It also names the backing endpoint. It stops short of 5 because it never differentiates itself from close siblings like get_enduraw_matrix or get_enduraw_performance_profile, which plausibly also expose training-load style data.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites stated beyond an incidental mention of Starter tier gating. With 23 siblings, several of which may cover overlapping form/load metrics, the absence of any routing advice leaves the agent to infer selection.

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