list_planned_activities

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds 'from the Coros training calendar' as useful context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like return format or pagination, though these are partially covered by the output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope with no unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.

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 read-only list tool with two well-described parameters, an output schema, and informative annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and source without requiring further explanation.

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% with start_day and end_day both described as dates in YYYYMMDD format. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool lists planned (scheduled) activities from the Coros training calendar, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from general list_activities by specifying 'planned' and from list_planned_activities_raw by not mentioning raw output.

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 implies usage for retrieving scheduled activities but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to use this vs. list_planned_activities_raw or list_activities.

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