Get sport-specific VO₂max history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the operation is read-only, that observations are normalized, and that running data preserves Garmin's raw 'sport generic' label while cycling remains separate. It does not disclose date-range semantics or output shape, but the safety profile and core data transformation are communicated well.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main behavior appears first, followed by targeted caveats. Every sentence contributes unique information, and the read-only and prerequisite details are included without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly for the main cases: it identifies the required athleteId, explains sport usage, and notes the omit-sport introspection mode. The main gap is that neither the description nor the schema explains startDate/endDate semantics, and the return shape is only implied by 'observations'.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides excellent guidance for the 'sport' parameter and says athleteId comes from list_athletes, but it completely omits 'startDate' and 'endDate' — their filtering behavior, inclusivity, or optionality beyond what the schema's date format implies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return normalized Garmin VO₂max observations for exactly one sport.' It also clarifies sport semantics (running vs. cycling) and the 'omit sport only to inspect available source labels' behavior, which distinguishes it from generic series-reading or analysis siblings.

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 concrete when-to-do guidance: pass 'running' or 'run' for running, notes cycling is separate, and says to omit sport only for inspecting source labels. It also names the prerequisite athleteId source, list_athletes. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like get_ftp_history, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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