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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description earns credit for disclosing a genuinely non-obvious quirk: the response is truncated to 12 workouts even though a limit up to 20 is forwarded to the API — that would otherwise cause silent miscounts.

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 result-shape constraint front-loaded ahead of the routing advice. Every clause carries distinct 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the limit-capping behavior is well covered. But for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving six parameters entirely unexplained — including how goal IDs and fitness levels actually influence ranking — is a real gap.

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 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only explains 'limit' (both its API ceiling of 20 and the 12-item response cap). The six profile and scoping parameters — locale, team_id, end_user_age, end_user_gender, end_user_goal_ids, end_user_fitness_levels — are never mentioned; 'based on profile' is the only, very indirect, hint that they drive ranking.

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 — 'ranked workout recommendations from the organization library' — and frames the output as profile-based suggestions rather than generated content. It differentiates from the generate_* siblings via 'faster than generate', but never mentions the very close sibling recommend_plans, so the agent must infer which recommendation surface to pick.

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?

Explicitly gives the trigger condition ('user wants instant suggestions based on profile') and names the alternative (generate) with the trade-off that selects it (speed). Missing any when-not guidance and silent on recommend_plans, which is the closest alternative in the sibling list.

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