Read personal wellness baselines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavior: it says missing values remain missing and that athleteId is required. It does not state read-only/side-effect status, default calculation windows, or behavior when no data exists, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the output contents and then add missingness and prerequisite notes. Every clause contributes information, with no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool returns and its one hard prerequisite, and the schema supplies value constraints, so a minimal call is invocable. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, an agent is left guessing about output shape, default windows, and whether metrics/endDate affect the returned statistics.

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 explains the athleteId prerequisite; it does not explain the meaning or effects of endDate, windowDays, or the metrics array. The schema's enum and numeric bounds help constrain values, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Return') and precise resource/output: trailing means, standard-deviation bands, latest values, and latest z-scores for recovery/training metrics. This concrete output set distinguishes it from sibling wellness tools like wellness_anomalies or wellness_correlate without needing to open the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need baseline statistics for wellness metrics, and the description gives the prerequisite that athleteId must come from list_athletes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for related needs.

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