calculate_vma

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

With no annotations, the description adds 'Returns VMA km/h and zones' which discloses return type beyond schema, but does not cover side effects or limitations (e.g., input validation errors). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys core 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?

For a calculator tool with output schema (implied), description is complete: states inputs, outputs, and references related tools. No gaps apparent.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. Description mentions 'Cooper 12-min, Luc Léger' which slightly expands enum labels but adds no new meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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 it computes VMA from a fitness test result, specifies 'for runners building training plans', and distinguishes from siblings by naming specific test types (Cooper, Luc Léger) and directing to list_bundles for related calculators.

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?

Provides a context ('Use for runners building training plans') and points to list_bundles for related tools, implying when not to use, but lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to alternatives like calculate_vo2max.

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