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

Annotations only declare it as a safe read; the description goes well beyond that by defining the completion rule (within a day either side of the date, or any day that week when started from the workout on the watch), the strength-session rule, the fallback to recent running/riding when nothing is scheduled, and the enumerated plan-state outcomes. These are non-obvious semantics an agent could not derive from the annotations or schema.

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 card contents are front-loaded, and every clause carries real information about semantics or fallback behavior. It is dense but slightly sprawling, with the state enumeration and completion rules packed into one long block rather than separated.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description supplies the interpretive layer that matters: what 'done' means, when the fallback view appears, and what the plan-state field is telling you. Combined with the parameter default explanation, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains that label is a plan code Daash created, gives a concrete example ('HM'), and defines the null/default behavior. The only gap is that it does not say how an agent discovers valid codes.

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 resource and shape: 'the user's training plan week by week, drawn as an interactive plan card,' and enumerates what the card shows (done/missed/moved/ahead sessions, next session with steps and paces). It even covers the empty-schedule fallback and the plan-state summary. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_progress or list_workouts, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage guidance exists only at the parameter level: 'Omit it for the plan running now, or the calendar around this week,' which tells the agent the default case. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over get_progress, get_workout, or list_workouts, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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