Get Coach Suggestions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals ordering ('newest first'), payload absence, the returned field set, the `limit` clamping behavior (default 200, max 500), and the empty-array-not-error guarantee. These are concrete behavioral disclosures that meaningfully inform invocation.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: first the returned row shape, then sibling routing, then parameter behavior, then the edge case. It front-loads the most decision-relevant information.

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?

Given two optional parameters, a meaningful sibling relationship, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: returned fields, filtering, limits, the relationship to `get_suggestion`, and the empty-array behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for both parameters. It explains the `status` enum values in place and gives `limit` semantics (default 200, clamped to 1..500), adding meaning the generic integer schema lacks.

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 ('List') and resource ('the coach's own proposals'), and clearly distinguishes itself from `get_suggestion` by emphasizing summary rows vs full proposal. It also enumerates the fields returned, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to 'Call this first' and directs when to use `get_suggestion` instead ('only when you need the full proposal'). This gives direct routing guidance relative to the closest sibling tool.

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