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 covered. The description adds the team-scoping constraint, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result-set size, or how an empty team is handled — mild added value only.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 described, but with seven undocumented parameters and a paginated list operation, the description leaves key calling details (page size limits, sort behavior, whether team_id overrides the authenticated team) unexplained. Inadequate for the schema's complexity.

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 seven parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing: page, per_page, sort_by, sort_order, search_text, locale and team_id are all left for the agent to guess. Notably it never explains whether team_id is required or how it interacts with 'authenticated user's team'.

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 workout programs (collections)') and scopes it to the authenticated user's team, which implicitly separates it from list_stock_programs and list_sample_workouts. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, but the team scope is unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives trigger phrasings ('see programs, training plans, or workout collections'), which is useful intent matching. However, it never says when NOT to use it or points to alternatives like get_team_program for a single program, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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