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.