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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only profile is largely free. The description still adds useful context beyond them: the result is scoped to training 'owned by the connected Phorme account' and the operation 'changes nothing', which tells the agent about account scoping and side-effect freedom. It stops short of disclosing failure modes (e.g. what happens if the id belongs to another account or was never saved).

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, each doing distinct work: trigger, return payload, required input, and negative scope. The usage condition is front-loaded and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 annotations covering safety, a fully described 2-parameter schema, and an output schema that carries return detail, the description fills every remaining gap: when to call it, what it is scoped to, and what it refuses to do. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters are already documented, including the provenance of training_id from the save tools and the workout/program enum. The description only restates that training_id is 'from that save', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource ('get... training already saved to Phorme') and pins the return payload ('title and open link'), which separates it from save_workout_to_phorme, save_program_to_phorme, and search_phorme_programs. The closing sentence explicitly disclaims the neighbouring behaviours (list, search, edit, delete), so an agent can route correctly without opening another schema.

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 ('when the user asks about a workout or program already saved to Phorme in this conversation, for example to get its Phorme link again') and an explicit set of exclusions in the same breath. Nothing about when-not-to-use is left to inference.

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