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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned and the 'one lightweight call' performance characteristic, going beyond the structured 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 definition is compact and front-loaded: the result is summarized in one sentence supported by example user intents. It includes only relevant operational details, though the listed fields could be slightly more scannable.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter call, the description plus schema and output schema cover what the tool returns, when to use it, and how it differs from a sibling. No critical behavioral or invocation information 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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single optional parameter (weeks, default 12, max 52). The description itself does not mention the parameter, but the schema fully documents it, so the baseline applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get training status overview') and explicitly enumerates the returned fields: weekly adherence, next scheduled workout, last workout date, days since last workout, and active routine. It also differentiates from get_training_snapshot by positioning itself as 'much lighter'.

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 explicit use cases in quoted natural-language queries ('what should I do today?', 'am I being consistent?', 'when did I last train?') and names the sibling tool get_training_snapshot as a heavier alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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