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

Annotations already cover the read-only/no-destruction profile, so the description's added value is the semantics: how grading works (four axes, self-referential intensity baseline, floor/ceiling as forbidden-to-exceed bounds), and the open:false behavior for unfinished weeks. That is substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations, though return shape/pagination specifics are not addressed.

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 is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the opening sentence is very long and hyphen-heavy, burying the output anatomy inside it. It is dense rather than wasteful, though it could be split for faster scanning.

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 contract, and it does: four graded axes, a letter grade, floor/ceiling bounds with rationale, and the open:false flag for unfinished weeks. Combined with annotations and the fully documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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% and the single date parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the default ('the last one that ended, today's on a Sunday'), which slightly clarifies the schema's 'default the last finished week' but adds little new syntax or edge-case meaning.

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 verb (grade) and resource (one finished training week) and enumerates exactly what the grade is composed of: four axes, a base letter A–D, and the floor/ceiling bounds. No sibling in the list produces a week grade, so an agent can identify this tool unambiguously from its name plus description.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call it when the athlete asks to review a week') plus a when-not boundary: an unfinished week returns open:false rather than an error, and grading starts from the week's Sunday. It also states the default (last finished week). No alternative sibling is named, but the routing condition is clear.

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