Get Hill Score

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

The description states the behavior ('Get hill score data') and adds a performance context. The annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to disclose those, but it also does not mention any additional behavioral aspects such as return format or error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary wording. It is appropriately concise and does not include redundant 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?

The description is minimal and does not provide sufficient context for a user to understand what 'hill score' specifically means, how it differs from other metrics, or what the return value might look like. Given the large number of sibling tools, more detail on the expected output and usage scenarios would be needed for 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 input schema provides clear descriptions for both startDate and endDate, covering their format and optionality. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline score for high schema coverage applies.

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 retrieves hill score data and adds context by mentioning climbing/vertical performance. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic data retrieval, though it could be more precise about the exact nature of the hill score metric.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar 'get_' tools. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or how it relates to other metrics like progress summary or daily summary.

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