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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail: the output is a rendered workout card identical to list_workouts. Beyond that it discloses nothing about lookup failure behavior, and the output schema already carries the return shape.

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-loaded with the core behavior and scoping, and the id provenance list is useful routing information. It is slightly longer than needed, but each sentence carries distinct value (what, when, and the anti-summary directive).

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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to cover selection and invocation. It does both fully, including the conversational context ('identified earlier') that determines correct use.

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% for the single workout_id parameter, so the schema already documents format and provenance. The description reinforces the id's origin and demands exactness, but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond what's structured.

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 ('Returns one specific MoveMate workout') and pins the lookup key to an exact workout_id. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_workouts by noting it renders the same workout card, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('show, open, or display a particular workout already identified earlier') and enumerates the sibling tools that produce a valid workout_id. It also adds a when-not directive: do not respond with only a text summary when an id is available.

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