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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'It reads only.' It adds value annotations do not carry: the prerequisite of a connected Phorme account that owns the brain, and a preview of what the read returns (stage, single next step, counts, last score).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by return contents, an imperative rule, and prerequisites. Almost every clause earns its place, though 'It reads only' largely restates readOnlyHint=true.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations, an output schema, and 100% param coverage, the description supplies everything the agent still needs: the trigger, the account prerequisite, and the instruction to trust the returned next step rather than assume the stage. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the schema already explains brain_id with an example ('cameron'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only indirectly touches the parameter via 'a connected Phorme account that owns the brain,' adding ownership context but no new syntax or format detail. 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?

The description states a concrete resource and payload: the AI coach's training status, returning stage, next step, and counts of passages, corrections, principles, and rating rounds. That clearly separates it from mutation siblings such as teach_my_coach, correct_my_coach, rate_my_coach, and ask_my_coach. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger — 'Use this when a Phorme coach (or their agent) asks where their AI coach's training stands' — plus an operating rule: 'Always read next from here; never assume the stage.' That is a strong when-to-use signal. No alternative tool is named or excluded, so it falls short of a 5.

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