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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description confirms that it returns a program (read operation) and adds details about the output (week-by-week, progression scheme, coaching notes). No contradiction; description adds value beyond annotations by describing the return content.

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 description is four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose (what, model, inputs/outputs, attribution). No redundant or vague language.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema. The description explains the output format (week-by-week program with progression scheme and coaching notes) and covers input categories. It could provide more detail on return structure or limitations, but is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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% (all 8 parameters described). The description groups parameters as 'lifter profile' and 'optional starting weights', adding structural context. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so score is baseline 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Generate', the resource 'structured 4-week novice linear progression program', and the target audience 'new or early-intermediate barbell trainee'. It distinguishes from siblings (plate_loader, warmup_calculator) by specifying the program content and model (Starting Strength).

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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool (for novice or early-intermediate barbell trainees) and what it is based on (Starting Strength model). It implies the tool is for program generation, not for loading plates or warmups. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other program generators.

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