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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the result ordering ('newest first'), the date-range scope, and the output fields, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact sentences put the essential output and ordering first, then state the intended use and the sibling tool for splits. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With rich annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema present, the description provides the missing context: scope, ordering, and how this tool fits into the run-history workflow. Nothing essential is absent for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, and the schema documents all four parameters with defaults, bounds, and examples. The description adds only a general 'between two dates' hint, so the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden as expected.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Training history between two dates'), enumerates the returned fields, and differentiates itself from the sibling ourpr_get_run by framing itself as the starting point for totals/streaks/trends. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from run-detail tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Start here for totals, streaks, trends, or finding a run' and routes split-level analysis to 'ourpr_get_run with an id from here.' This gives the agent a clear when-to-use and a named alternative, leaving little ambiguity.

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