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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the payload shape (steps, cue, reps, equipment, why it works). It does not mention behavior on an unknown or invalid drill id, which is the remaining gap.

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 short sentences, no filler; the 'when to use' clause leads and the input provenance follows, both earning their space.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return content and input provenance; only error/invalid-id behavior is left undefined for a single-parameter read 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 0% and the schema only types 'id' as a string, but the description compensates by stating the id is a drill id sourced from search_drills, diagnose_ball_flight or practice_plan. Format details (opaque vs slug) are still unspecified, so not a 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+resource ('full instructions for one drill') and enumerates exactly what is returned (steps, cue, reps, equipment, rationale), which cleanly separates it from search_drills and practice_plan.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the golfer wants the full instructions for one drill') and names the three sibling tools that produce the required id, so the agent knows both when to call it and how to obtain the input.

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