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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses that there is no HTTP call of its own (delegation), the exact filter applied, the fallback to the first entry when the filter misses, and that null is returned for a falsy or empty result. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs to interpret a null or unexpected response.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose before the implementation detail, with no wasted words. The inline code-styled internals are slightly technical but each clause (delegation, filter, fallback, null) conveys distinct behavior.

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 one-param read-only tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, selection semantics, fallback, and the null case, so an agent can call and interpret it. It stops short of describing the score's shape or range, but the essential call-and-parse information is present.

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% (cdate documented as YYYY-MM-DD UTC), so the schema carries the parameter. The description adds no additional format, default, or range meaning beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully-documented single parameter.

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+resource ('training readiness score computed after waking up on a date') and pins down which variant is returned ('inputContext === "AFTER_WAKEUP_RESET"'). This distinguishes it in substance from the sibling get_training_readiness, though it never names that sibling as the alternative, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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 filter description implicitly signals this is the after-wakeup variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no naming of get_training_readiness as the general-purpose alternative. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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