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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description explains the two layers of data: amendments made before the session versus actual set-by-set execution. It also documents important behavioral context: no TSS, no duration, actual RPE, load/reps, and the athlete's reason for divergence. This gives the agent a strong mental model of what the tool returns.

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 long but dense, with the core purpose front-loaded and no fluff. Some sentences around 'opposite advice' and 'the calendar alone cannot tell you' are explanatory rather than strictly necessary, but they reinforce usage rather than waste space.

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?

The semantic content is thoroughly covered, especially the distinction between amended decisions and executed sets. However, the description does not address date-range behavior, return format, or empty results. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about what the agent receives would make this fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description never mentions the to/from date-range parameters. The parameter names and date pattern provide some self-evident meaning, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema semantics, so an agent gets no guidance about how the date range filters the log.

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 opens with a concrete resource: what the athlete actually did in a planned gym session, set by set, plus what they changed in the plan before starting. It clearly explains why this tool exists and distinguishes it from calendar or plan data by noting that strength sessions have no TSS or duration.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before prescribing the next gym session and before judging whether the last one was completed. It also warns that the calendar alone cannot answer those questions. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but it provides clear context and the different questions each data layer answers.

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