Get Endurance Score

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that the score is derived from training load, but it lacks specifics about time windows, parameter effects, or return characteristics, which would enhance transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates what the tool does without any filler or redundant phrasing. It is highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context: the term 'recent training load' is vague, and the role of the optional date parameter is unclear. With no output schema, more detail about the expected result or time window would improve completeness.

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 description for the single parameter 'date' is self-explanatory (including the YYYY-MM-DD format), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('endurance score'), and adds a meaningful basis ('based on recent training load'), giving the tool a clear scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling get_* metric tools beyond the metric name itself.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_training_load, get_load_ratio, or get_performance_condition. The description only restates the core function without contextualizing appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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