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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description is free to add what they can't: the result rows omit the workout itself, competitions are absent, and there is a has_more/pagination notion. It stops short of describing ordering behaviour or how far a window may span, so it isn't fully exhaustive.

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?

Purpose, exclusion and routing are front-loaded in that order, and every clause carries information. It is dense and slightly overloaded with cross-references (get_calendar, nolio_api_read, get_planned_training) but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's row-shape listing ({id, name, date_start, athletes, group, sport, has_structured_workout, …}) is genuinely load-bearing and it correctly warns the workout body is absent. The ellipsis leaves the full field set unknown, which is the only real gap.

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%, so date_from/date_to, athlete, group, recurrence and limit are already documented. The description only adds guidance to keep the window narrow, which is a usage hint rather than parameter meaning — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (find planned training workouts on the calendar over a date window) and explicitly separates itself from competitions and from the get_calendar/read alternatives. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus get_planned_training, which returns the workout body.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('location step before reading or editing an existing workout'), explicit when-not ('this alone never answers what is on her calendar' because races are separate), and names concrete alternatives (get_calendar in planned mode, nolio_api_read on planned/competitions/). The follow-up step (read a candidate with get_planned_training) is spelled out.

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