Get ATP (annual training plan)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the 'Max 90 days' date-range limitation and the specific return content (weekly TSS targets, training periods, races), which are not inferable from annotations alone.

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 extremely concise (12 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element earns its place: the resource, the contents, and the critical 90-day limit. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with strong annotations and a simple 3-parameter schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns and a key constraint. It lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling tp_get_training_plan and does not mention the optional athlete parameter, but these are not critical given the schema and annotations. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, so the schema already explains all parameters (athlete, start_date, end_date). The description does not add further meaning or clarify parameter formats beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Annual Training Plan', and further specifies what it returns (weekly TSS targets, training periods, races). The mention of 'Annual' and the specific content distinguishes it from generic training plan tools like tp_get_training_plan.

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 provides clear context by listing the plan content and adds a concrete usage constraint ('Max 90 days'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like tp_get_training_plan or exclude other types of plans, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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