trainerize_guide

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. The word "guide" plus "its screens and the sign-in link" implies an informational read that returns reference content, but it never states that it performs no actions, what the response looks like, or whether the returned link requires auth. Adequate but leaves real ambiguity about side effects for an unannotated tool.

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?

One compact sentence plus a short imperative. Every clause carries information, though the most decision-relevant cue, "Call this first," is placed last rather than front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter orientation tool this covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say what comes back (reference text, a URL, screen inventory) and confirm it is non-mutating. That gap matters because agents must decide whether calling it is safe and what to do with 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional `task` parameter is already documented as free-form intent, so the baseline applies. The description adds no guidance on how to phrase `task` or what granularity helps, contributing nothing beyond the schema.

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 the resource (Trainerize) and the content the tool exposes: how to work in it, its screens, and the sign-in link, with parenthetical scope covering clients, programs, check-ins and messages. That is enough to separate it from the action siblings (click/open/type/read), though it never explicitly says the tool returns documentation rather than performing the work.

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?

"Call this first" is an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to all siblings. There is no when-not guidance or statement of what to do after calling it, but the sequencing cue is clear and actionable.

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