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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that it returns 'full details' and 'program structure', which is modest extra context; it says nothing about permissions, scoping, or cost that the annotations don't already imply.

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 with the resource description front-loaded and the usage trigger second; no filler. Slightly imprecise wording ('workout program') keeps it from a 5.

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?

The output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety disclosure, and the usage trigger is present. The unresolved gap is parameter meaning for locale and team_id, plus no differentiation from get_team_workout, which leaves the definition only minimally complete for a 3-param tool.

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 0% across three parameters, and the description never explains what locale or team_id do, nor how team_id interacts with program_id resolution. Only program_id is weakly implied by 'a workout program', leaving two parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Returns full details of a workout program from the team'), which contrasts reasonably with list_team_programs. However, the phrase 'workout program' blurs the line with the sibling get_team_workout, so the distinction requires the agent to infer that this returns a program, not a 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?

'Use when the user selects a program or asks for program structure' gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so an agent deciding between get_team_program and get_team_workout gets no explicit routing guidance.

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