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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is 'Free' and that future days expose only format/style, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the difference in detail between past/current and future days beyond that single hint.

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?

It is two tight sentences with no filler, and the key information (this week's schedule) is front-loaded. The parenthetical format list is informative rather than padding.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so reasonably by listing the covered formats and explaining how future days are presented. For a simple zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only auth/usage context left unstated.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 resource (this week's training schedule) and enumerates the formats it covers (Engine, Strength & Power, Speed Run, Metcon, etc.). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names a sibling such as get_todays_wod or coach_programme to help the agent distinguish when this weekly view is preferred over a daily or coached one.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to see the week's schedule. The note that 'future days list only their format and style' hints at limitations but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance nor any named alternative among the siblings.

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