Get Training Load

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

The annotations already signal read-only status, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the snapshot semantics: the result is taken at endDate, not aggregated across the date range. This helps avoid a common misuse of the startDate/endDate pair and goes beyond the annotation's safety signal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value. The second sentence provides a key behavioral clarification with no redundancy.

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, simple two-parameter tool with high schema coverage, the description sufficiently orients the agent: what the tool returns, when it is relevant, and how the dates behave. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by naming the load categories and target-range comparison, making the return concept clear.

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 100%, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that endDate is the snapshot point rather than the end of an aggregation window, which is essential to correctly interpret the two date parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('monthly training load balance') with its sub-categories (low aerobic, high aerobic, anaerobic) and comparison against target ranges. The snapshot clarification further distinguishes it from aggregate-range tools and related load metrics among siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool: to fetch a snapshotted training load balance as of endDate. It clarifies this is not an aggregate over the range, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_training_status or get_load_ratio, nor does it list exclusions.

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