analyze_multisport_load

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by explaining that COROS cardiovascular load is kept separate from heuristic impact exposure and recorded strength duration, which is valuable and not just a restatement of safety flags. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds important detail about how load components are treated. Every phrase contributes value.

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 is adequate for selecting the tool, but without an output schema it does not describe what the aggregate result looks like or what units are returned. Given the complexity of separating multiple load types, some indication of return shape or metric breakdown would make the definition more 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the two parameters. It adds the concept of a 'date range', tying startDate and endDate together, but does not specify format, bounds inclusivity, timezone handling, or any other semantics an agent might need to pass valid values.

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 ('Aggregate') and a clear resource ('date range across cycling, running, trail, walking, hiking, strength and mobility'), which states what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from sibling analysis tools by naming the exact sport scope and the load-separation behavior, though it does not explicitly name a competing alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied: it should be used when aggregating load across the listed sports over a date range. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to related tools like weekly_training_report or summarize_planned_load, leaving the agent to infer the right selection.

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