get_running_tolerance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It clearly indicates a read operation and describes the retrieved data, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if days is outside the 1-90 range, how end_date interacts with days, or any response-format caveats that the output schema may not cover.

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 sentence with no filler, repetition, or redundant phrasing. Every word adds meaningful detail and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and the description covers core what-it-returns and the time range, the definition is serviceable. But it lacks usage guidance versus sibling tools and doesn't explain end_date interpretation, leaving a moderately informed agent to guess about edge cases.

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 undocumented parameters. It does provide a range ('1-90 days') for the days parameter, which adds some meaning, but it says nothing about end_date beyond its name. The description leaves the relationship between days and end_date unclear, and doesn't cover format or validation details.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (running tolerance) and the data fields returned (Garmin running distance, impact load, tolerance, feedback). It also specifies a time range (1-90 days), making the tool's scope unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_training_status or get_daily_summary, but the metric list is distinctive enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it doesn't mention any sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over others. The '1-90 days' phrase is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.

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