Review seven days of training

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns facts, covers a seven-day window, is source-cited, and does not prescribe a training plan. However, it does not describe output structure, default behavior when endDate is omitted, error conditions, or whether any side effects exist, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core function ('Return source-cited... facts'), then adds a clarifying exclusion and the required prerequisite. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple read-style report tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, time window, prerequisite, and the key limitation that it does not prescribe a training plan. It leaves minor gaps such as the default end date and the shape of the returned facts, but these are not critical for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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 add parameter meaning. It does add context for both parameters: athleteId is identified as coming from list_athletes, and endDate is described as an optional date marking the end of the seven-day reporting period. This goes beyond the raw schema, although it could be even more explicit about the endDate parameter name and default behavior.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: returning 'source-cited health, training, and nutrition facts' for a seven-day period. It adds scope ('seven-day period ending on an optional date') and explicitly clarifies that it 'does not prescribe a training plan.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like review_daily_recovery_load or review_activity_deep_dive, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 useful usage context by naming the prerequisite 'Requires athleteId from list_athletes' and by indicating that the tool is for obtaining facts rather than a plan. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions among the sibling tools, so the guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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