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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's only behavioral addition is restating it as a GET plus the raw endpoint path. It discloses nothing about what a phased plan contains, error behavior for a missing planId, or auth requirements — the endpoint string is opaque metadata rather than useful context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the endpoint detail. Efficient, though the raw service path is arguably wasted tokens for an agent.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate but stops short: it does not explain what a phased training plan is, how it differs from adaptive plans or the plans list, or what the call returns. No output schema exists to compensate.

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% ('Numeric id' on planId), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds nothing beyond 'by id', which is the baseline 3 for a fully covered 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 and resource ('One phased training plan by id'), and the qualifier 'phased' hints at the distinction from the adaptive variant. However, it never names the sibling tools it must be distinguished from (get_training_plans, get_adaptive_training_plan_by_id), leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_training_plans for listing or get_adaptive_training_plan_by_id for adaptive plans. Usage is only implied by 'by id'.

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