Get dated FTP history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses 'Read-only', 'normalized', and 'source-aware preferred daily values', which adds useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain how source preference affects results, date-range behavior, or output shape.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, followed by safety and prerequisite guidance. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Despite a small description, the context is incomplete for an agent making a correct call: no output schema, no annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no explanation of sourcePreference values, date range handling, or default behavior. An agent would need to guess several important details.

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 compensate, but it only hints at athleteId provenance and source-aware preference. It does not explain startDate, endDate, sport, or sourcePreference semantics beyond what the bare schema fields imply.

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 resource ('cycling FTP settings and activity-summary observations') and the action ('Return normalized ... with source-aware preferred daily values'). It is more specific than the title, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_vo2max_history or power_curve_trend.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires athleteId from list_athletes') and notes the tool is read-only. It does not state when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives, but the prerequisite is useful routing context.

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