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 description's 'changes nothing' is largely redundant. It does add genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: result count cap (five), a sample session from week one, fit-based (non-commission) ranking, and the membership/pricing disclosure policy.

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?

Purpose and use condition are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return shape and then policy constraints. Four sentences for a policy-laden tool is justified, though 'changes nothing' mildly restates the readOnly annotation.

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 values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the payload (up to five programs with a first-week sample). Combined with annotations and schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge behavior (empty results, what happens if no sport/goal given) is unaddressed.

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 71%, so most parameters (goal, creator, equipment, experience, schedule_days) are already documented in the schema. The description only implicitly maps to sport and goal ('for their sport or goal') and adds no format, default, or combination guidance for the seven optional filters. Baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb (search/find), the resource (coach-built Phorme training programs) and the trigger (user asks for a program for their sport or goal), with a concrete example ('structured volleyball program'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_phorme_program (fetch a known program) and save_program_to_phorme (persist one).

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 use condition ('when the user asks for an existing coach-built training program for their sport or goal') plus negative guidance about pricing and purchase flows. It stops short of naming alternatives such as get_phorme_program for retrieving a specific program, so it is clear context without full sibling routing.

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