Strain & training load

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned data elements and the condition for the acute:chronic load ratio ('when enough data exists'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence efficiently communicates all essential information: what the tool does, the data window, and specific data returned. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to detail return structure. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter range, and a conditional aspect. Slightly more context about prerequisites or data source could be added, but overall sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds meaning by specifying the valid range ('7-180 days') for the 'days' parameter, which is absent from the schema (only default and type). This clarifies usage 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 specific verbs and nouns: 'Strain and training-load trends' with a defined window, and lists all data components (daily strain, calories, workout totals, acute:chronic ratio). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_recovery_trends and get_sleep_trends by focusing on strain and load.

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 usage for trend analysis over a customizable time window (7-180 days), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_daily_summary or get_correlations. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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