Inspect FIT-derived power coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is critical, and mentions the data source and the requirement of athleteId. It does not describe output format or pagination, but it covers the key behavioral points. This is solid coverage given no annotations are provided.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, data source caveat, and operational constraints. No unnecessary words; it is efficiently structured for quick agent parsing.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the range semantics of startDate/endDate, the meaning of sourceQuality options, or how sport and sportFamily interact. The phrase 'complete duration-best inventory' remains undefined, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently construct a correct call.

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 parameter meanings. It only mentions athleteId as required and alludes to 'sport or sport family', but does not explain startDate, endDate, sourceQuality, or the distinction between sport and sportFamily. This leaves a large semantic gap for a 6-parameter tool with no 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 clearly states the tool reports powered activities and the complete duration-best inventory for an explicit sport or sport family. It uses specific terms like 'powered activities' and 'duration-best inventory', and explicitly notes the use of Garmin FIT-derived power, which distinguishes it from sparse activity summary tools. This provides a clear verb-resource-scope framing.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires athleteId from list_athletes') and notes the data source ('Garmin FIT-derived power, not sparse activity summaries'), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or state specific exclusions (e.g., 'use power_curve_trend for trends'), so the guidance is mostly implicit rather than prescriptive.

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