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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the plan entitlement requirement and the program structure (periodisation, deloads, volume targets), but says nothing about determinism despite a seed parameter, output size, or generation latency. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences with the output characteristics front-loaded and the prerequisite second. Nothing is wasted; it is simply thin rather than bloated.

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?

An 11-parameter generation tool with no output schema needs the description to explain how inputs shape the program and what comes back. Instead the description covers only the artifact's shape and a billing prerequisite, leaving an agent unable to infer much about the output structure or the role of most parameters.

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 only 55% across 11 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, and it does not. It never mentions goal, level, weeks, daysPerWeek, equipment, avoidJoints, format or the seed parameter, leaving the most consequential inputs undocumented in prose.

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 names the produced artifact concretely (a multi-week program with periodisation, deloads and weekly volume targets), which implicitly separates it from the single-session sibling generate_workout. It stops short of an explicit verb or an explicit contrast with that sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 only usage guidance is an entitlement prerequisite ('Needs the Scale plan'), which is useful but is a gating fact rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing says when to pick this over generate_workout, or what happens if the plan requirement is unmet.

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