get_athlete_profile_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond annotations: 'Missing data is explicit and never estimated,' which is critical context for interpreting results. It also clarifies the scope of the returned profile, adding value beyond the schema.

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 tightly scoped sentence with no filler. The core action, resource, and key metrics are front-loaded, and the missing-data guarantee is appended as a compact, high-value clause.

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 lookup with only two parameters, the description covers the returned metrics and the key behavioral contract. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail about how lookbackDays influences the trend window would have made it fully self-sufficient.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for lookbackDays, especially since its schema entry lacks a description. The phrase 'period trends' hints at time-window semantics but does not explicitly explain that lookbackDays controls the aggregation period. asOfDate is documented in the schema, so the description adds no additional clarification there.

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 ('Return') and a concrete resource ('consolidated COROS physiological profile and period trends') followed by enumerated metrics: VO2max, lactate threshold HR/pace, base fitness, training indices, HRV, and resting HR. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hrv_data or get_daily_metrics by emphasizing the consolidated, trend-oriented nature of the output.

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 implies when to use this tool by its content and consolidated nature, but it does not explicitly state when it should be preferred over alternatives such as get_hrv_data or weekly_training_report, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is inferable, not stated.

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