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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond them: the metrics are computed in code, coach-logged attempts from Badgie are merged in, the trend is defined as the mean of the first three versus the last three attempts, and the no-active-routine fallback is disclosed.

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?

One dense but front-loaded sentence lists the returned metrics, followed by two short sentences covering coach-logged attempts and the fallback. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so by enumerating each metric and the trend formula. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool; only the absence of any guidance on the `days` window and on choosing this over sibling practice tools keeps it short of full marks.

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% and the single `days` parameter is fully documented in the schema with its 7–180 range and default of 30. The description never mentions `days` directly, though its note about returning loose attempts when there is no active routine explains the condition under which that window matters; this is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description names the specific resource (progreso de la rutina de práctica) and enumerates exactly what the result contains: intentos, mejor y última marca, veces en objetivo, tendencia y días cumplidos frente a planificados. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as get_net_practice, get_swing_practice or get_my_drill_activity, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader learns that the tool reports practice-routine progress and that with no active routine it falls back to recent loose attempts, which hints at when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for the drill-activity or net-practice cases, so routing between the practice-related siblings is left to inference.

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