Get dated FTP history

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

The description explicitly includes 'Read-only,' which is crucial given that no annotations are provided. It also adds behavioral context with terms like 'normalized' and 'source-aware preferred daily values,' disclosing processing behavior. However, it doesn't detail how source preference is resolved, so some ambiguity remains.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by 'Read-only.' It front-loads the core action and resource, with zero wasted words or redundant 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the general topic but omits return format, date-range behavior, default values, and parameter interplay, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for parameter ambiguity. It indirectly covers date parameters via 'dated' and sourcePreference via 'source-aware,' but sport is unmentioned and the enum values for sourcePreference are not explained. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully replace schema descriptions.

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 ('Return') and names a precise resource ('normalized cycling FTP settings and activity-summary observations'), making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vo2max_history by focusing on FTP and source-aware daily values.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_series or query_read_only_data. The description lacks explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent receives no help choosing between overlapping read-only tools.

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