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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the output content (exercises, sets, reps, RIR, rest) and a consistency note ('same plan as the Bodywise page'), which is useful but not rich behavioral detail. No auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode context is provided, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose, scope, output shape, and a reference point. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 usefully summarizes what the generated plan contains (exercises, sets, reps, RIR, rest) and mentions the 2–6 day range and split options. Combined with the fully described input schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the exact response structure, but this is close to complete.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all six parameters, including enums and defaults. The description mirrors some enum values (split types) but adds no additional syntax, constraints, or interpretation beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 states a specific verb (Generate) and resource (weekly gym plan) with clear scope (2–6 days, split types) and output contents (exercises, sets, reps, RIR, rest). It implicitly distinguishes itself from calculator siblings by being a plan generator rather than a single-metric calculator, but it never names an alternative, so 4 rather than 5.

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 implied by the description: it's for generating a weekly gym plan. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like weekly_volume_auditor, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the use case, but the description doesn't help choose between this and related tools.

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