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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that weeks are keyed by the Monday of each week — but says nothing about ordering or behavior when no weeks are planned.

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 dense sentence with zero filler; the core identity and the Monday-keying convention are both front-loaded.

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 should carry return-value semantics; it gives the Monday key format but not ordering, empty-state behavior, or whether it returns dates versus week indices. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a tool whose entire purpose is its return shape.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents workoutId fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the coverage but earns only the 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 specific resource and question: which weeks a workout is planned for, with the parenthetical '(periodization)' anchoring the domain concept. It is clearly a read of week data for a workout, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from set_workout_weeks or get_workout.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling set_workout_weeks as the mutation counterpart, and no preconditions (e.g., workout must be periodized). The agent must infer read-vs-write from the tool name alone.

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