get_training_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces '(read-only)'. Beyond that it discloses the default window (30 days back to 180 days ahead) and enumerates what categories of entries are returned, which is real behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and the sibling escape hatch in the first sentence, with detail following. It is dense and acronym-heavy (TARGET, SEASON_START, set eFTP) but each clause carries information; the parenthetical '(read-only)' mildly duplicates the annotation.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the entry types the tool yields, plus the default date window. It is nearly complete for a read-only listing tool; only ranking/ordering or volume behavior is unstated.

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 already documents all four parameters including their defaults and the enum. The description restates the default range but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (reads) and a well-defined resource set: the assigned training plan plus annual-plan calendar entries (PLAN, TARGET, RACE, SEASON_START, fitness-model setters). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_events for single workouts, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Opens with a concrete usage condition ('Use for the season view') and names the sibling alternative for single workouts ('Single workouts: get_events'). It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or precedence rules for the other plan-related siblings like get_plan_compliance or get_weekly_summary.

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