get_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 safety is covered structurally. The description adds only that the endpoint is the 'phased' variant, with no mention of auth scopes, error behavior for unknown planIds, or response shape. It contributes almost nothing beyond the annotations.

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 short and free of padding, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise — a single URL fragment that is not front-loaded with a human-readable purpose. Size is fine; usefulness per sentence is low.

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?

With no output schema and a large, dense sibling namespace, the description should at minimum explain what is returned and how this plan type relates to get_training_plans and get_adaptive_training_plan_by_id. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 description coverage is 100% (planId documented as 'Numeric id'), so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description only echoes the path placeholder {planId} and adds no format, constraint, or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to obtain a valid planId).

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 is a raw HTTP endpoint restatement ('GETs `/trainingplan-service/trainingplan/phased/{planId}`') rather than a statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer it retrieves a training plan by id and that the plan is 'phased', but nothing explains what a phased training plan is or how it differs from the many sibling get_*_by_id tools. This is effectively a tautology of the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like get_training_plans, get_adaptive_training_plan_by_id, get_training_plan_workouts, and get_scheduled_workout_by_id, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing this tool over any of them.

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