SSTracker free youth training

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing real behavioral traits: results are free, and the app's own age gates withhold contact, tackling, heading and advanced drills until the child is old enough, which explains why a valid age query can return a reduced set. It also lists the per-drill payload, adding useful context the annotations cannot convey.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the audience and the core constraint (age gating) before the result shape. The parenthetical could be split out for readability, but it carries genuine information about which drill categories are withheld, so nothing is wasted.

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 simple four-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers audience, filtering behavior and the shape of each returned drill, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The remaining gap is relational — it does not explain how these drills feed into the sibling planning tools or how results are ordered.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the age range and the sport enum; the baseline for that case is 3. The description reinforces the age-gating semantics behind the 'age' filter but says nothing about 'skill' or 'at_home' that the schema does not already state.

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 concrete verb and resource — surfacing free SSTTracker drills filtered by sport and a child's age — and previews what each result contains (steps, minutes, safety line, page link). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never references the sibling tools (get_practice_plan, get_tryout_prep, weekly_home_plan), so an agent must infer on its own why find_drills is the right entry point rather than one of those.

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 states the audience ('for parents, coaches and trainers (adults)') and implies use when looking for age-appropriate drills, which gives an agent a workable context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison against the practice-plan or tryout-prep siblings, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral content beyond that: the plan is free, consists of two 60-minute practices, and the response includes a page link. It does not say what happens if a plan is unavailable for a given combination, but for a read-only lookup this is solid.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and its distinguishing details front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical audience clause is slightly awkward but earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with rich annotations and fully described enums, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, at what scope, and for whom. No output schema exists, and the mention of the page link adequately signals the response content.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters carry enums, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The phrase "for a sport and U age group" only restates the parameters and adds no format, default, or constraint information beyond them; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get a free team practice plan) scoped by sport and U age group, plus the audience. An agent can distinguish it from find_drills and get_tryout_prep by the resource being returned, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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 audience note ("For parents, coaches and trainers (adults)") gives context about who and implicitly when this applies. There is no statement of when to prefer this over find_drills or weekly_home_plan, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description still adds genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations cannot convey: the plan spans three weeks, is home-based, is free, is aimed at adults, and the response includes a printable packet link — which partially compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the audience and the resource, with no redundancy. It leans on promotional adjectives ('free, calm') that consume space without helping tool selection, but nothing is structurally confusing.

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 two-parameter, fully enumerated, read-only lookup this is close to adequate, and the printable-packet hint substitutes for a missing output schema. It does not say what the plan actually contains (drill lists, weekly sessions, printables) or how it differs from sibling planning tools, leaving an agent guessing about content overlap.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully enumerated with inline descriptions, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only restates the sport and age-band scoping without adding format, defaults, or edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens for an unsupported sport), which is the baseline 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?

The description names a specific resource — a free three-week tryout-prep plan scoped by sport and age band — plus an artifact (printable packet link), so the agent knows what it will get. It never names or distinguishes itself from the adjacent siblings find_drills, get_practice_plan, and weekly_home_plan, so overlap with 'practice plan' or 'weekly home plan' remains ambiguous.

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 only guidance is an audience note ('for parents, coaches and trainers'), which says who the content is for rather than when an agent should call this tool. There is no mention of when to prefer it over get_practice_plan or weekly_home_plan, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral context the agent would otherwise lack: output is clamped to youth limits on training days and session length, and always includes two rest days. It also discloses that a SSTracker link is returned. It does not say what happens when requested days/minutes exceed those limits (silent truncation vs. error).

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 a single dense sentence with no filler; audience, output, constraint model, and the SSTracker link all earn their place. The constraint clause is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded, which costs a little scannability.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so at a high level: a week plan for a sport and age plus a link. Combined with the disclosed clamping rules, an agent has enough to call it and set expectations, though the exact shape of the week (session blocks, per-day structure) remains unspecified.

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 75%, with sport and age effectively covered, but the description adds the important nuance that days and minutes are wishes constrained by age-based youth limits and a two-rest-day rule — meaning the returned week may not match the requested values. That is meaningfully beyond the schema, which presents days and minutes as plain bounded integers.

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 deliverable: 'a short general home week for a sport and age', plus the audience ('parents, coaches and trainers'). It is clearly a plan-builder rather than a drill search or tryout tool, though it never names the closest sibling, get_practice_plan, to draw the line explicitly.

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 implied by the audience note and the phrase 'short general home week', and the mention of a link to 'build a child's own week on SSTracker' hints at an alternative route. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_practice_plan or get_tryout_prep instead, so the routing is left to inference.

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