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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive disclosure beyond that by enumerating exactly what is returned (per-week letters, done vs planned hours, done/missed/ahead sessions, race, overlaid blocks with stimulus and lever). Only gap is nothing about size/volume of a full year's payload.

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 resource definition, then the operational guidance. Dense but each clause carries information; the parenthetical doc reference and the somewhat run-on planning sentence cost it a point.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden and it does so thoroughly, plus it covers the planning workflow the tool feeds into. Slightly incomplete on result size and on the year parameter's behavior, but otherwise sufficient to call 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 100% with a single optional 'year' parameter already documented ('default this year'). The description never mentions the year parameter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and its scope precisely: 'The athlete's YEAR, by weeks — what the calendar's Season view shows', then enumerates the payload (weeks, letters, hours, key sessions, races, training blocks). An agent can tell this is the season-level aggregate, distinct from week-level or plan-level tools, though no sibling is named as a contrast for the read itself.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions: 'Read it before you plan beyond the next two weeks or when they ask how their season looks'. It then names the alternative (set_training_blocks) and describes the correct workflow split — blocks first, sessions only into the next two weeks, targets beyond that.

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