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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output voice ('Coach Fly's voice') and content type (coaching decisions), but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, what the response format is, or whether it accepts pagination beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey purpose, content, and intended use. The parenthetical list efficiently clarifies what 'coaching decisions' means. It is not overwrought, though the title and first sentence overlap slightly in meaning.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and voice. It does not explain return structure or behavior of the limit parameter, but the tool is not complex enough to demand much more. Still, a brief note on the feed's contents or ordering would improve completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter is optional and its name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how it affects the returned feed (e.g., number of entries, default behavior).

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 identifies the tool as the 'what changed & why' feed, explaining the engine's coaching decisions and giving concrete examples (volume bumps, deloads, swaps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_program or get_todays_session, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 suggests a use case—'Use to explain to the athlete why their plan evolved'—which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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