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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds genuine context: the response includes tags and assigned clients, private programs on Team Accounts are visible only to admins, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. The admin-visibility and auth details are behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then layered with filter, permission, and auth details in four tight sentences. The 'TrueCoach:' prefix is slightly redundant with the title and name, but overall there is little waste.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (programs with tags and assigned clients), the filtering behavior, an account-tier visibility caveat, and the API-key requirement. Only the return shape/pagination is left unspecified, which is a minor 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'tag' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description restates the filter behavior ('filtered by program tag if you give one') but adds no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the account's programs, including tags and assigned clients, optionally filtered by tag. Clear enough to identify the operation, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like truecoach_assign_program or truecoach_list_workouts, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

It explains that results are filtered by program tag 'if you give one,' which implicitly tells the agent how the optional parameter changes behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions for when this list should not be called.

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