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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world), so the description only needs supplementary context. It discloses the dependency on existing team workouts but says nothing about permissions, what happens if goal/workout IDs are invalid, or side effects on the source workouts.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the use case, with constraints appended. No filler, though the required-params sentence is where the inaccuracy creeps in.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 9-parameter creation tool with zero schema descriptions the definition covers only a fraction of the surface. The misleading 'requires' statement leaves an agent with an incomplete and partly incorrect picture of what to supply.

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?

With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, but it only constrains goal_ids (1-2) and workout_ids (min 2). Seven parameters (name, team_id, difficulty, visibility, description, duration_in_weeks, workouts_per_week) are undocumented anywhere; worse, 'Requires goal_ids and workout_ids' contradicts the schema where only name is required.

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 verb and resource ('Creates a workout program') and adds the source ('from team workouts'), which separates it from generate_program/generate_workout in spirit. It never names the closest sibling explicitly, so the distinction from generate_program must still be inferred.

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 when the user wants to organize workouts into a multi-week program' gives a concrete trigger condition. No when-not or explicit alternative (e.g., generate_program, create_workout) is mentioned, so ambiguity remains for adjacent tools.

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