Icu Get Annual Training Plan

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the default window behavior ('365-day forward window so the full ATP is returned') and how to narrow it, which is useful but only marginally beyond what the schema's default and description already convey. No additional behavioral details (e.g., what happens when no ATP exists) are provided, but with strong annotation coverage this is adequate.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, then use cases, then default behavior, then exclusions. Every sentence earns its place: the example queries, the window guidance, and the sibling exclusions all directly help an agent decide when to call this tool. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description needn't explain return formats or safety. It covers purpose, when to use, when not to use, and default window behavior—everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Athlete_id for coaches is covered in schema, so no gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the default window and narrowing advice, which is already in the days_ahead schema description. It adds no new meaning for days_back or athlete_id beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('Annual Training Plan (ATP)'), plus the exact data it returns: weekly TSS targets, Base/Build/Peak phases, and week notes. It explicitly names sibling tools it is NOT, making it unmistakable which tool to select.

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?

Provides concrete example user questions that map directly to this tool, specifies the default 365-day window and when to narrow it, and explicitly lists alternatives (icu_get_upcoming_workouts, icu_get_calendar_events, etc.) with their distinct scopes. This is textbook when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance.

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