Get coaching context

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals important behavior: if intake is incomplete it returns the intake flow instead with intake_required=true, and that constraints shape generation without touching the profile. This adds valuable context well beyond what annotations provide, and does not contradict the readOnlyHint.

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 concise yet covers all critical points in four sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives usage timing, behavior nuance, and parameter clarification. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant 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's simplicity (2 params, one enum) and the existence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it returns, when to call it, how to handle incomplete intake, and what constraints affect. It even points to the sibling tool for durable facts. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description explains the `constraints` parameter in detail: 'TODAY-ONLY circumstances... shape this generation without touching the profile.' It does not explicitly describe the `task` parameter, but the schema's enum provides the allowed values. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates, though it could be more explicit about the role of `task`: it only hints at it via 'for the task'.

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 exactly what the tool returns: 'Coaching instructions + this user's fresh training context for the task.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from update_coach_profile by noting durable facts go there instead. The agent can clearly tell this tool apart from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Call at the start of any coaching conversation' and specifies when not to use it: 'durable facts go through update_coach_profile instead.' It also clarifies that constraints are only for today-only circumstances, which narrows the appropriate usage context. This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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