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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true even though the name says "create", and the description explains exactly why: it "opens nothing by itself" and only returns screens, buttons and fields. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe the shape or limits of the returned guidance in much depth, so it is not a 5.

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?

The hand-off behavior is front-loaded and the "opens nothing by itself" clarification earns its place, but phrases like "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" and the trailing note about Intervals.icu having a public REST API (with an odd future check date) add no actionable information and risk distracting the agent toward an API path this tool does not use.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema guidance tool, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and that a separate browser tool set performs the actual work. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing, though more detail on the return content would help.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters at 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is lost or added.

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?

The first clause names a specific verb and resource ("Create planned workout in the user's own Intervals.icu account") and the second clause corrects the expectation by stating it actually returns step-by-step instructions. That is clear enough to distinguish it from the browser tools it hands off to, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling intervals_icu_update_planned_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?

It gives explicit context for use and a concrete next step: run this, then perform the steps with cotlet_browser_* tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated, and nothing says when to use the update sibling instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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