get_weekly_load_progression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious caveat that output is 'arithmetic only' with no coaching interpretation, which is genuinely valuable behavioral context. It stops short of stating units, computation source, or rounding, so gaps remain despite a strong caveat.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then the scope caveat, then args. Appropriately sized with little waste. The trailing 'Args:' block is slightly format-heavy but earns its place by adding the max-52 bound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary. For a one-param, read-only tool the description covers purpose, scope caveat, and parameter bounds. It is essentially complete, with only the ambiguity against load/trend siblings left unaddressed.

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% and the single param's schema only carries a default. The description compensates by explaining 'weeks: Number of weeks to analyze' and adding the 'default 12, max 52' constraint, which is meaningfully beyond the schema. This is nearly complete param semantics for a one-param tool.

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 and resource: 'Get training minutes per ISO week and the week-over-week change.' This is clear and concrete, telling the agent exactly what data comes back. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_weekly_intensity_minutes or get_training_load_trend, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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?

The line 'Whether a given ramp rate is too fast is a coaching decision' implicitly scopes the tool as informational rather than interpretive, which is useful guidance. But it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not conditions relative to the many load/trend siblings. Usage is only implied.

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