get_adaptive_training_plan_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description does not contradict them. Beyond that it adds almost nothing behavioral: no note on what happens for an unknown or malformed planId, whether the plan must be active, or how large the response is.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, and the differentiating information is front-loaded. But it is a sentence fragment built from an internal URL, so the brevity comes at the cost of readability rather than from disciplined editing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling an agent what comes back, and it does not: the shape of an adaptive training plan, whether it includes workouts or phases, and error behavior are all unspecified. For a read tool with one parameter the definition is technically callable but leaves the agent guessing about the result.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents planId (accepting integer or string). The description adds only the minor fact that planId is interpolated into the path rather than passed as a query parameter, which is the baseline-level value expected here.

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 (GETs) and resource (the fbt-adaptive training plan sub-path) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_training_plan_by_id's phased path, which satisfies sibling differentiation. However, it describes the tool through its API route rather than stating plainly what an adaptive training plan is or what the caller gets back, so it is clear but implementation-flavored rather than purpose-oriented.

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 contrast with getTrainingPlanById's phased path is a weak routing cue, but the description never says when an agent should prefer this tool over get_training_plan_by_id, get_training_plans, or get_training_plan_workouts, nor what preconditions (e.g., an existing adaptive plan, Connect+ entitlement) apply.

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