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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not restate it. The description adds real context beyond that: the source of the data (the user's active plan), the two exercise categories covered, and the three possible per-task statuses (done, skipped, open). It does not mention ordering, empty-plan behavior, or the date default, but the schema covers the date default.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and closed with the one piece of workflow context an agent needs. There is no filler, no restatement of the tool name, 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 no output schema available, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so adequately by naming the per-task fields and status values. For a single-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only edge details like ordering or behavior when no active plan exists are absent.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the format pattern, the yyyy-MM-dd shape, and the today/US-Eastern default all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the date parameter, so the baseline of 3 is correct here.

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 and scope: today's tasks from the user's active plan, broken into cardio and strength exercises. It also enumerates the per-item fields returned (prescription, status, task id), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the weekly sibling get_week, but 'Today's' is a strong enough qualifier to separate it.

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 conveyed operationally rather than declaratively: the closing sentence tells the agent that every returned line carries the task id the write tools take, which effectively positions this as the lookup step before complete_task, skip_task, or the log_* tools. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it short of a 5.

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