Build a cycling progress report

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by declaring the operation 'Read-only and descriptive,' so the agent knows it has no mutation side effects. It also surfaces the athleteId prerequisite. It does not disclose output format, date-range behavior, or any data-source caveats behind 'source-aware.'

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 definition is two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. The prerequisite is supplied as a short standalone sentence that is easy to parse.

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 composite report tool with no output schema and no annotations, and the date-window parameters are undocumented. The description names the report's content areas but does not explain what inputs control the time range or what shape the returned report takes.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only clarifies athleteId ('Requires athleteId from list_athletes'). startDate and endDate are not mentioned, and the report period is only vaguely implied by 'monthly canonical volume/load.'

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 names a specific action ('Combine') and a clear deliverable: a cycling progress report built from FTP, VO₂max, volume/load, and power-curve histories. This distinguishes it from sibling point-data tools like get_ftp_history, get_vo2max_history, and power_curve_trend by framing it as a composite report.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires athleteId from list_athletes') and labels the tool 'Read-only and descriptive,' which implies safe, report-oriented use. However, it does not state when to prefer this composite report over individual history or trend tools, nor when not to use it.

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