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.