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.