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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return format (per-day lines with cardio, strength, and status) but says nothing about what happens for future weeks with no plan or for out-of-range week numbers.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the return shape, then the default behavior. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 usefully explains what a result row looks like, which is the main thing an agent needs beyond the one well-documented parameter. Minor gaps remain around empty/missing weeks and what "status" values mean.

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 the single parameter already documents "The week number. Default: the current week." The description repeats the default without adding any new meaning such as week-numbering conventions (ISO weeks, year boundaries, valid range).

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 the resource explicitly ("the weekly training plan") and even specifies the shape of the result: one line per day with cardio type, strength type, and status. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling reads like get_today, but the weekly granularity is clear from the name and text.

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 usage signal is "Default is the current week," which implies the optional week parameter can be used to fetch other weeks. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_today or get_performance, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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