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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that it only renders the values supplied and neither fetches nor mutates anything in Phorme. That is real context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about rendering failure or validation behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and trigger, then the input sourcing, then the safety clarification. No sentence is redundant.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the trigger, input source, and side-effect profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented non-enum parameters, which is minor for a display-only tool.

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 43%, below the 50% threshold, so the description should compensate more than it does. It only says to pass the matching fields from the prior result; it adds no meaning for training_kind, warning_count, exercise_count, or estimated_duration_minutes.

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: show the user a compact Phorme training card. It also distinguishes this display-only tool from the tools that produce its inputs (save tools, get_saved_training, preview_program_import), so an agent can pick it without opening a 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 explicit trigger conditions: call after a save tool or get_saved_training has returned, or after preview_program_import, and pass the matching fields from that result. It names the source tools clearly but does not state when not to use it or what to do if no such result exists.

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