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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it requires a connected Phorme account, weights are in pounds, results should be grounded ('Answer from these numbers only'), and it reads only/changes nothing. The 'reads only' clause partly restates readOnlyHint=true, so it is good rather than purely additive.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then return contents, then constraints and the sibling handoff. Dense and purposeful, though it restates return fields that the existing output schema already conveys, adding mild redundancy.

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 read-only, zero-required-param tool with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use it, auth prerequisite, units, grounding rule, and routing to the import-preview sibling.

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?

Only one parameter (limit) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the default of 10. The description adds nothing about the limit, so this is the baseline for a fully schema-covered parameter.

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 combo (return the user's own logged training in Phorme) and enumerates the concrete questions it answers (last session, frequency, PRs, next-workout basis). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_planned_sessions, get_lift_progress and get_saved_training without needing their schemas.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user asks about their own training logged in Phorme') and names a concrete downstream alternative: pass the result to preview_workout_import to build a next workout. Both the selection condition and the handoff are spelled out.

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