get_coach_context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses response size (~2-3k characters), content composition, that small samples are flagged, that missing values are never 0, that a method line states windows/rules, and that no verdict is rendered. These are behavioral traits an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 directive is front-loaded and the two paragraphs are information-dense rather than padded. The second paragraph is a long run-on inventory of returned sections, but each item carries real content, so little could be cut without losing behavioral detail.

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 complex aggregator with no output schema, the description fully characterizes what comes back, the caveats (flagged small samples, missing values never 0), and the method/guide references, so an agent can call it correctly and interpret results without further discovery.

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%, so the schema documents each parameter, and the description adds cross-parameter behavior: it explains that when the end date is today the response extends to the next 7 days of planned workouts and the next race. That conditional semantics goes beyond the schema, though threshold_as and detail_level nuances are left entirely to 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?

States a specific action (one compact call) and resource (aggregated training review), and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: load, intensity, recovery, durability, plan. It is clearly separable from siblings because it explicitly lists the drill-down tools it summarizes.

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?

'Use first for a weekly or general training review' gives an explicit entry-point directive, and it names the alternatives (get_training_load, get_intensity_distribution, get_durability, get_recovery_snapshot, get_load_projection) as the sources for further detail. An agent knows both when to pick this tool and where to go for a narrower view.

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