get_vo2_max_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond 'get'. It does not disclose auth/permission requirements, behavior on a missing or malformed ID, or what the returned document contains. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient though arguably under-specified rather than optimized.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool, so little is required, but with no output schema and no annotations the description could reasonably say what a VO2 max document reports or how errors surface. Adequate but leaves evident gaps.

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% for the single document_id parameter, so the schema already defines it; the description only restates that it is a unique ID. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single VO2 max document) scoped to one item by unique ID, which clearly separates it from its list sibling get_vo2_max. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent noticing the 'by_id' pattern rather than on stated contrast.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over get_vo2_max, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied by the name taking a document_id.

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