Review daily recovery and training load

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'source-cited' facts and explicitly avoids prescribing a training plan, indicating a read-only, informational behavior. However, it does not mention what happens when no data exists, whether there are any side effects or costs, or the shape/format of the returned facts.

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 sentences with no filler. The core return behavior is front-loaded, followed by a key exclusion and a required-input hint. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It tells the agent what data domain is covered and the required input, but not the exact return structure, the date default/optionality behavior, or caveats about data availability. These gaps matter given the absence of structured metadata elsewhere.

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. It clarifies athleteId's origin with 'Requires athleteId from list_athletes,' which is valuable. The 'date' parameter is not explicitly described, though the tool's 'daily' framing and schema's date format imply its meaning. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Return source-cited daily health, training, and nutrition facts for a recovery/load review.' It also adds a useful boundary with 'It does not prescribe a training plan.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like review_weekly_training or review_activity_deep_dive beyond the word 'daily.'

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,' which tells the agent how to obtain required input. It also states a negative use case with 'does not prescribe a training plan,' helping the agent avoid misuse. It stops short of naming alternative tools for cases where a training plan or weekly view is desired.

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