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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation behavior is already implied. The description adds modest value by stating that it 'Returns the full list' and noting the coaching adaptation effect. It does not disclose other behavioral traits such as update/delete behavior, permissions, or list specifics, but it does not contradict the 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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the consequence and return behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple one-parameter recording tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it gives the action, the purpose, and the return behavior. It could be slightly clearer about what 'the full list' contains, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the single required parameter 'description' is generic. The tool description only indirectly indicates that the value should describe the injury or health condition, but it does not provide format expectations, examples, or additional context. With low schema coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Record an injury or health condition.' It also explains the consequence ('the coach adapts training to it'), which distinguishes it from generic add/list tools like add_custom_metric. The purpose is unambiguous and easily differentiated from 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 when to use this tool: when an injury or health condition needs to be recorded. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools such as add_custom_metric or any of the get/list tools, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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