Build a cycling progress report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only and descriptive,' giving a clear safety signal. However, it does not explain what 'source-aware' means, how the report is structured, or how data is handled, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, efficient, and front-loaded with the core action. Every phrase contributes meaning—'source-aware,' 'monthly canonical volume/load,' and 'labelled power-curve trends'—without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a report generator that integrates multiple data sources, the description is too thin. It doesn't specify output format, how sources are combined, or edge cases like missing data. There is no output schema or annotations to fill the gaps, leaving a complex tool under-specified.

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?

The schema defines startDate and endDate with formats but no semantic descriptions. The tool description never mentions these parameters or clarifies that they delimit the reporting period. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the tool combines FTP and VO₂max histories with volume/load and power-curve trends to build a cycling progress report. The verb 'Combine' and resource specification make it distinct from sibling tools like get_ftp_history or power_curve_trend, which focus on individual data sources.

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?

Usage is implied: you'd use this when you want a comprehensive summary across multiple cycling metrics. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this over specific sibling tools, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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