calibrate_sport_performance

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that it reports fit error, confidence, and limitations, and that indoor cycling is excluded. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core operation first, then the exclusion and the outputs, making it easy to parse.

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 calibration tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input scope and the nature of the output: fit error, confidence, and limitations. It does not precisely define 'comparable' or the exact output structure, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 schema covers the endDate format and lookbackDays bounds, but only 33% of parameters have descriptions. The description helps by implying outdoor activity types and excluding indoor cycling, but it does not directly clarify how sport, endDate, and lookbackDays interact.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it fits base speed/pace and an ascent penalty from comparable COROS activity summaries. It also clarifies the intended scope by explicitly excluding indoor cycling, which distinguishes it from generic activity analysis tools.

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 gives clear context that this is meant for outdoor-route calibration and explicitly excludes indoor cycling. It does not name a specific alternative sibling, but the exclusion is enough to guide an agent toward correct usage.

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