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

The readOnly/closed-world annotations already cover the safety profile, and the description adds real value by disclosing exactly which data categories come back (anamnesis, injuries, recent training loads). It omits any caveat about consent or data sensitivity, which matters here given a sibling get_student_ai_consent exists.

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 tight clauses: what it returns, then when to call it. Front-loaded with the payload contents, with no filler. Slightly compressed phrasing ("the student summary the app's AI uses") costs a small amount of clarity.

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 describing the return payload and does so by enumerating fields. It doesn't indicate structure, granularity, or volume of the training history, which leaves minor ambiguity for a tool whose whole purpose is its return value.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it fully ("The student_id from list_students"), so coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 concrete resource and enumerates its contents: age, sex, goal, anamnesis, injuries, and recent weeks of training with loads. It is distinguishable from the many list_* siblings, though it never contrasts with near-neighbors like get_student_summary, get_student_health, or get_anamnesis_overview.

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?

"Use it before writing a workout yourself" gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a concrete task. It stops short of saying when not to use it or naming the alternative summaries to pick instead when the task isn't workout authoring.

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