coach_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the report's contents (causes, focus, trend) but does not state that it is read-only, whether it depends on prior analysis/sync steps, or what the response format is.

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 two sentences and front-loads the entry-point cue ('Start here'). The output summary is dense but purposeful, with no redundant restatement of the title or name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the input schema has zero description coverage. The description covers the report's outputs and sibling relationship but leaves all parameter semantics and operational prerequisites unexplained, so an agent cannot fully determine how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description never mentions username, time_class, or recent_games. It adds no meaning about defaults, valid values, or how inputs affect the report.

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 identifies this as the entry-point coaching report: it explains losses, gives one weekly focus with evidence, and shows a trend against earlier games. It distinguishes itself from siblings by telling the agent to use 'the other reports to drill into the focus area,' though it describes outputs rather than naming a specific action verb.

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?

'Start here' is an explicit routing instruction, and 'Use the other reports to drill into the focus area' clarifies when to use siblings instead. It lacks explicit preconditions such as requiring synced or analyzed games, but the selection guidance is strong.

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