get_training_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context by noting that load balance and acute:chronic ratio are only present 'when available,' which signals conditional/missing fields, but it says nothing about the provider dependency (openWorld) beyond that hint or about empty/partial results.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core 'week-by-week training' payload and with the conditional metrics placed last. Dense but every clause maps to a returned field, so little is wasted; it reads as a fragment rather than a full sentence.

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?

Return values need no explanation given the output schema exists, and the description complements it by naming the notable metrics. For a read-only single-parameter tool that's close to sufficient, but the unexplained `weeks` semantics and absent sibling-routing guidance leave gaps.

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?

The single `weeks` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't — it never explains that `weeks` controls the lookback window (default 4). Worse, mentioning 'the provider's 4-week load balance' could mislead an agent into thinking that figure scales with the `weeks` argument.

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 enumerates the resource precisely: week-by-week run km and count, hybrid/class sessions, hours, training load, hard sessions, plus 4-week load balance and acute:chronic ratio. It's a noun-list rather than a verb phrase, so the action ('retrieve') is implied, but the content scope is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_readiness or get_coach_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?

No indication of when to prefer this over get_progress, get_readiness, or get_coach_plan, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent seeing overlapping-sounding siblings gets no routing help.

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