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

Annotations already declare this a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds transparency about the output content (checklist, constraints, skeleton, decline criteria) and the conditional enrichment based on the goal parameter. This is more than the annotation provides, giving the agent a clear expectation of what the tool returns.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and packs in the key content categories without redundancy. The second sentence efficiently explains the optional goal parameter, making every word useful.

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?

Given the tool has a rich output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It covers the tool's core function and the conditional objective behavior. It could mention a prerequisite (e.g., obtain template_id from list_templates), but that is already present in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, but the description adds semantic value for the goal parameter by listing concrete goal types (marathon, HYROX, Ironman, etc.) and explicitly noting it triggers a goal-specific playbook. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'matches an expert playbook when available'.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('coaching guide for one sprint template'), and enumerates the guide's contents (interview checklist, constraints, skeleton, decline criteria). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_templates, which only lists template IDs.

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 implies when to use it: when you need the coaching guide for a specific sprint template, and it explains the optional goal parameter enriches the result with a goal-specific playbook. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like validate_spec or get_status, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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