Get Load Ratio

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already convey that this is a read-only tool with no expected side effects. The description consistently says 'Get', so it does not contradict the annotations; however, it adds little novel behavioral information beyond the metric's semantics. No return format or pagination behavior is disclosed, but these are not essential given the annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence that immediately states what the tool does and what the ratio represents. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and a heavily covered schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's core function. It lacks details such as reference thresholds or expected typical output, but given the simplicity and the guidance from the annotations, the overall context is nearly complete.

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 only parameter, date, is fully documented in the input schema with a format pattern and a required note, providing 100% schema description coverage. The description itself does not need to repeat parameter details and adds no extra meaning beyond the already explicit date requirement.

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 starts with a strong verb and a specific resource: 'Get acute/chronic workload ratio'. It also briefly mentions its purpose ('training balance and injury risk'), which clarifies the metric. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_training_load or get_training_status, but the metric name is sufficiently distinct.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_training_status, get_training_load, or get_performance_condition. The phrase 'indicating training balance and injury risk' provides only a vague implied use case, not concrete when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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