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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the precedence rule that user-typed notes are "the last word" and the instruction to respect the content. It does not describe freshness, pagination, or the shape of returned notes, but it contributes meaning beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the resource contains and closing with the authoritative precedence rule and call-site guidance. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the content categories an agent should expect, the semantic weight of the notes, and the moment in the workflow to call it.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly spends no space on input semantics. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Names a specific resource (coach notes about the user) and enumerates its contents: injuries, race dates, goals, constraints, refused exercises. The scope is distinguishable from siblings like get_user_profile or get_workout_history because it is explicitly framed as coach-authored observations.

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 alongside get_user_profile before building a plan" gives explicit timing and a companion tool, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it relates to the other 12 siblings, but the primary workflow context is unambiguous.

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