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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, and the description usefully adds that it 'changes nothing,' that it only returns training owned by the connected account, and that it depends on an id produced earlier in the same conversation. This is meaningful context beyond the safety hints, though it says nothing about behavior when the id is stale or belongs to another account.

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, then return value, then prerequisite, then exclusions. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return contents need not be over-explained, and the description still summarizes them (title and open link). With annotations covering safety and the schema covering both params, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so both training_id and the training_kind enum are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that training_id must come from a save tool, which is a mild provenance constraint, but adds no format or value semantics beyond the schema. 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 (retrieve a previously saved workout or program) and scopes it precisely to items 'a save tool already saved in this conversation.' It carves a clear niche against siblings like save_workout_to_phorme (the creator of the id) and get_phorme_program (account-level programs).

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 user asks about a workout or program that a save tool already saved in this conversation') and a concrete example use case (getting the Phorme link again). It also rules out list/search/edit/delete, but never names the sibling tool to use instead for those cases, so the routing is partial.

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