Get sport-specific VO₂max history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses that observations are 'normalized' and that 'generic and cycling values remain separate', which are useful behavioral traits beyond a simple read. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but the provided context is valuable.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately adding a key behavioral nuance. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the return data looks like and the semantics of the parameters. It fails to clarify date range behavior, allowed sport values, or the meaning of 'normalized', leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies the sport parameter by saying 'exactly one sport' but does not define allowed values or clarify that startDate/endDate define a range. The schema marks all parameters as optional, yet the description implies a sport is needed, creating ambiguity. No parameter details are offered.

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 returns 'normalized Garmin VO₂max observations for exactly one sport', specifying both the resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that generic and cycling values remain separate, making it specific to sport-specific VO2max history.

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 use when you need VO2max data for a single sport, and the note that 'generic and cycling values remain separate' provides context for data granularity. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list and tool name make the use case clear.

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