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

The read-only safety is already declared by annotations, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the coach_note field's purpose, warns to read it before proposing changes, and cautions that omitting it on update_template will erase it. This is valuable, non-redundant behavioral guidance with no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: definition, usage trigger, and the critical coach_note preservation warning. It is front-loaded with the core action, and the warning is concise rather than bloated.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter read tool with an output schema present. The description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and the key caveat about preserving coach_note on updates. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents template_id sufficiently. The description reinforces that the ID refers to a specific template and that the result includes exercises and prescriptions, but it does not add parameter-format details beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific template with its full exercise list and set prescriptions (reps, weight, RIR).' This clearly distinguishes it from list_templates and other get_* siblings, while the mention of 'full exercise list and set prescriptions' makes the tool's scope concrete.

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?

Provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when you need to see or discuss the contents of a specific workout template.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_templates for browsing,' but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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