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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by enumerating exactly what the dry run produces: created weeks/sessions/exercises, skipped rows and warnings with row numbers, confirmable exercise names, and names that become new custom exercises.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the key value proposition ('exactly as the IronLedger app will import it, before anyone loads it on a phone'). The returns clause is dense but each element earns its place; only mild length overhead.

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 compensates by enumerating the return contents in detail. Both parameters are documented, and the pre-import validation workflow is fully explained, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the field-level detail, including the canonical header and quoting rules. The description adds a workflow-level meaning for fileName by tying it to program naming ('The app names the program after the file, so pass the file name you will give it'), slightly exceeding the baseline of 3.

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: validate a training program written as CSV/TSV exactly as the IronLedger app will import it. The framing (a dry-run import check that returns weeks/sessions/exercises, skipped rows, warnings, and naming prompts) makes it unmistakable against the calculator siblings like one_rep_max or plate_loading.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use it whenever you write a program for someone to import into IronLedger, and fix anything it reports first.' It also instructs on the fileName parameter ('pass the file name you will give it'), giving clear usage context with no ambiguity.

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