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 this with 'reads only and changes nothing in any account.' It earns credit for disclosing non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: what happens when no program exists (match_quality and limits report it) and the rule never to present another sport's program as a match.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the triggering condition and the primary behavior, then layers routing and exclusions. It is on the longer side, but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational value; only the read-only restatement is somewhat redundant with the annotations.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to invoke, what is returned (sets, reps, coach notes, demo link), the no-match fallback, exclusions, and the downstream save path. Return-value detail beyond this is handled by the output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents sport, season_phase, and gym_days_per_week, including the enum. The description adds only the general notion that output is 'sized to the days the user has' and never mentions season_phase, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: it selects the closest coach-built Phorme sport program and returns one week of gym sessions sized to the user's available days. This clearly separates it from siblings like preview_program_import, preview_workout_import, and search_phorme_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?

Opens with an explicit triggering condition (user plays a sport and wants a week of gym days planned around it) and gives a concrete scenario. It names three exclusions (injury rehab, children's team practice plans, nutrition) and routes the save path to preview_workout_import with origin "sport_week".

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