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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is light. The description adds that it returns training blocks and weekly targets, which gives some context about the nature of the data. It doesn't mention any other behavioral aspects like auth or rate limits, but given the read-only nature and zero parameters, this is minimal gap.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Get the season plan') and elaborates with specific content. No unnecessary words. Perfectly sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns (training blocks and weekly targets). The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe how this differs from get_schedule, but for a no-parameter read-only tool, that's acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter meaning. The schema coverage is 100%, but with no parameters, the description is sufficient. The description adds value by specifying the content (training blocks and weekly targets), which sets expectations for the output.

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 the tool retrieves the season plan consisting of training blocks and weekly targets. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_schedule or get_activity by specifying 'season plan' as the resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings.

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 usage: when you need the season plan (training blocks and weekly targets), use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_schedule, which might be used for similar scheduling information. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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