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 explaining the data returned, the concept of a Block, and that it computes which week of the Block today falls in. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loads the primary subject, and defines the key domain term 'Block' at the end. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description plus the output schema and annotations cover the essential information an agent needs: what data is returned, what a Block is, and how the past parameter behaves. It does not discuss edge cases like no past races or timezone handling for 'today', but these are minor for a read-only, idempotent retrieval tool with a well-documented schema.

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 single parameter 'past' is fully documented in the schema with description, default, and bounds. The description adds some related context by mentioning past race Blocks, but does not directly explain the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific resource ('goal race and training blocks') and enumerates exactly what is returned: race day, distance, goal time, current week, weekly miles, and past race blocks with results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ourpr_list_races or ourpr_plan_week, which cover different aspects of race/plan data.

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 makes the intended use obvious by naming the goal race and training block context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the content is specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. No misleading guidance is present.

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