taper_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs less safety disclosure. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the tool depends on externally supplied, normalized sleep records and does not fetch them internally. 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The critical mandatory sleep-routing instruction is front-loaded, and each sentence carries necessary information for correct invocation.

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 assessment tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key dependency and the data dimensions used. It does not describe the return shape, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's analytic nature make this less critical. The main gap is not explaining how it relates to get_readiness_summary or when to choose it.

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 describes asOfDate and raceDate formats, but leaves officialSleepRecords undocumented. The description compensates by explaining that officialSleepRecords should be normalized results from querySleepData for the required wake-up-date range. It doesn't fully map that range to raceDate/asOfDate, but it adds meaningful parameter context.

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 that the tool assesses taper readiness using load, sleep, HRV, and resting heart rate. It names a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_readiness_summary.

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 an explicit mandatory workflow: first call querySleepData, normalize, and pass as officialSleepRecords. This is strong contextual guidance, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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