show_week_fit_score

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

The readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations are present and consistent with the description. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns a text summary alongside a visual view and that it renders an interactive MCP app, which are behavioral details not covered by the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with the first sentence stating the tool's purpose and the second sentence providing usage guidance and output details. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or excessive length.

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 fully explains what the tool does, what it returns (text summary and visual view), and when to use it. The default behavior (current Fit Score and past 7 days) is specified, and the output schema is implied. No critical context is missing for a read-only reporting tool.

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 single parameter 'range' is fully documented in the schema with an enum and description ('Time window'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'Fit Score' with a specific composite (0-100) and its six components. It also distinguishes itself from similar tools by specifying the 7-day default and the preference for rendering an interactive view over text descriptions.

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 explicit user-intent guidance ('When the user asks about this, prefer calling this tool...') and explains the output format. It does not mention alternative tools for similar requests, but the instruction to prefer this over text descriptions gives sufficient context.

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