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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: every state carries window_weeks=8, median_n can be as low as 1 and should not be read as typical across lifts, and an empty result means no qualifying progressing lifts yet. These behaviors directly affect how an agent should interpret and act on the output, and nothing in the description contradicts 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?

Although the description is longer than average, every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose, then covers window semantics, sibling distinction, return-field meanings, and the empty-result fallback. The structure is organized into clear thematic segments and avoids repetition or fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only, parameterless data-retrieval tool. It covers the key question the tool answers, the interpretation of the main metrics (median_pct, median_n, counts), the meaning of an empty response, and the appropriate fallback. Because an output schema exists, the detailed field list is welcome context rather than a gap.

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 input parametersabbeding, so the description has nothing to add beyond the schema's already-complete 100% coverage. The description instead focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is warranted because parameter guidance is non-applicable rather than deficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the user's Strength Climb — the headline strength-progress signal.' It clearly identifies the 8-week window and explicitly distinguishes the tool from get_exercise_progress/list_trained_exercises, whose per-lift states use a 6-week window. This makes the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous relative to 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 gives direct usage routing: prefer this over the deprecated composite training_score, and if the result is empty, fall back to get_exercise_progress per lift. It also explains how to interpret disagreements between the 8-week climb and the 6-week per-lift state, telling the agent which window to quote. This is explicit when-to-use and fallback guidance.

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