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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds material context beyond them: a result cap with `has_more`, the exact entry shape returned, the ownership/assistant exclusion rule, and the meaning of `is_wb_enabled` as 'structured content is valid and watch-ready'. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs and none are in structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph: scope first, then return shape, then the paging/next-step guidance — nothing is buried. It is dense and jargon-heavy (tfr_…, spt_…, is_wb_enabled), but every clause carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the exact entry fields returned, explaining the non-obvious `is_wb_enabled` and `family` values, and disclosing truncation behavior. Combined with the explicit handoff to get_training_frame for full content, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds practical guidance by naming `q`, `category` and `sport` as the refinement levers when results are truncated, and by tying `category`/`sport` usage into a workflow. It doesn't add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so it stops short of 5.

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 ('Search the reusable training templates') plus a precise scope rule — own templates and team templates, excluding teams where the caller is only an assistant. This distinguishes it immediately from get_training_frame (full content) and apply_training_frame (applying), which are both named.

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?

Routes the agent clearly: cite `id` into apply_training_frame, fetch the workout tree via get_training_frame, and refine with `q`/`category`/`sport` when `has_more=true`. It never states an explicit exclusion (e.g. when to prefer list_library_categories for browsing folders instead), so it falls just short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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