get_progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: every metric carries an improving/stable/declining verdict, and metrics the provider does not compute are explicitly listed as missing, which tells the agent to expect partial results rather than treat gaps as errors.

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 core purpose and time window are front-loaded in the first clause, and the long metric enumeration is dense but each item names a distinct return field, so it earns its space. Minor redundancy in the final sentences about verdicts and missing metrics.

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 an output schema present, the description need not spell out return structure, and it still previews the metric set and the verdict/missing-value conventions. The only gap is the thin treatment of the single input parameter's valid range.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of 'weeks'. It does define the semantics as the trailing window ('improving over the last N weeks'), but it gives no default, permitted range, or minimum lookback, leaving the agent to guess sensible values.

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 states a specific resource (athlete progress trends over the last N weeks) and enumerates the metrics returned — VO2 max, predicted race times, endurance/hill/lactate scores, running impact, station progress — which clearly separates it from readiness or training-summary tools. It stops short of naming a sibling, but the scope is 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?

Usage is implied by the 'improving over the last N weeks / Coach-style' framing, so an agent can infer this is the trend-analysis call rather than a point-in-time check. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_readiness or get_training_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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