review_period

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses what the tool does (shows compliance, flags missed workouts, includes spontaneous/foreign activities), how results are presented ('reported, not interpreted'), and the default time window. No safety or side-effect concerns are stated, but the 'review' nature clearly implies read-only behavior.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the first paragraph details scope and outputs, and the second paragraph gives interpretation guidance and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has two optional params, an output schema (present), and moderate complexity. The description explains what customers will see (planned workouts, compliance, missed flags, all activities), notes a key nuance (spontaneous/foreign plans count toward load), and directs users to other tools for deeper detail. Given the output schema handles return structure, this description is complete and well-contextualized.

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%, with both start_date and end_date already documented with formats and defaults. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond reinforcing the 7-day default, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it doesn't compensate with deeper semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('reviews') and resource ('planned versus actual training in a period'). It enumerates the outputs (planned workouts, compliance, missed workouts, all activities) and differentiates from siblings by pointing to get_activity and get_fitness for alternative views.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: it explains the default behavior (last 7 days) and gives direct alternatives for more specific needs ('Use get_activity for per-interval detail', 'get_fitness for the CTL/ATL/form trend'). This satisfies the 'when to use vs alternatives' requirement.

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