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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing per-view payload contents and flagging that include_data_quality costs 'one more scan' — a real performance hint. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether the last-10-sessions block is windowed or capped.

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?

Purpose and the 'Call this FIRST' directive are front-loaded, then the view legend follows in a scannable dot-separated list. It is dense and slightly telegraphic, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so view by view, plus a default and a cross-reference to povver://guide/tools. Two optional params, a read-only tool, and no missing call-critical information.

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% (the enum values for 'view' carry no descriptions), and the description fully compensates by defining all three views' contents and stating that include_data_quality adds the data_quality block / e1RM coverage. This is meaning an agent could not derive from the schema alone.

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?

States the resource precisely ('who the user is and where their training stands') and enumerates exactly what each view returns, so an agent can picture the payload before calling. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as read_workouts or analyze_training, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Call this FIRST' is an unambiguous sequencing instruction, making the intended entry point clear. However, no when-not conditions or named alternatives are given (e.g., when to prefer profile over snapshot, or when read_workouts supersedes it), so the routing guidance is directive but incomplete.

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