get_training_status

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 structurally. The description adds only the constraint that the result is scoped to a single date; it says nothing about what data is returned, whether a date with no training yields empty data, or any other behavior beyond 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?

A four-word fragment with zero waste and the scope constraint front and center. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tight structure.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what 'training status' actually returns, and it does not. An agent knows only that it gets something called a status for a date, which is insufficient to judge whether the call answers its question.

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% and the single cdate parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, YYYY-MM-DD, UTC). The description's 'for one date' reinforces the single-date semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description identifies the resource (training status) and its scope (one date), and the name supplies the verb. However, it barely goes beyond restating the tool name and never defines what 'training status' contains, nor distinguishes it from close siblings like get_training_readiness, get_morning_training_readiness, or get_daily_stats.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite several sibling tools (get_training_readiness, get_morning_training_readiness) that an agent could easily confuse with this one. The only implied usage is 'pass a date'.

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