get_training_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is 'rule-based and conservative' and that it 'flags stale data explicitly,' which are useful traits for interpreting outputs. It does not discuss errors, latency, or edge cases, but for a 0-parameter informational tool this is solid coverage.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The opening sentence delivers the verdict and signal list, the second adds the algorithmic tone, and the third gives usage guidance and data-freshness behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is 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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so return values are structurally covered. The description provides purpose, decision context, behavioral traits, and staleness handling, making it complete for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are trivially covered by 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 states a clear purpose: provide a GO/EASY/REST readiness verdict for today, with the key signals behind it. This differentiates it from siblings like get_recovery_summary and get_daily_metrics, and the 'START HERE' phrasing reinforces its role as the primary readiness decision tool.

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 explicitly directs usage with 'START HERE for "should I train today?"' giving a strong contextual signal about when to use the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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