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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the null-when-unagreed case, the user's timezone framing, and the counting rule ('Progress counts only what was done'), which prevents misreading the metrics.

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 return contents and only two sentences long, but the second sentence is a dense list of progress metrics that borders on enumeration for enumeration's sake. It remains readable and every clause carries information.

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 an output schema present, return shape is already documented, and the description still adds the semantics an agent needs: the null case, timezone basis, and the rule that only completed work is counted. Nothing required to interpret or invoke this zero-arg tool 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The trailing 'Args: {}' is redundant but harmless.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Get the weekly job-search plan') and enumerates exactly what it returns: goal, target roles, applications a week, review day, state, plus this week's progress. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling mutators set_coach_plan and pause_coach_plan, which write rather than read.

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?

It gives clear context for reading the plan ('the plan the user agreed') and the null case ('plan is null when no plan was agreed'), which lets an agent decide whether it has anything to show. It does not explicitly route to alternatives like set_coach_plan or pause_coach_plan, so there is no exclusion guidance.

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