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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several non-obvious traits: a $0.01 USDC cost on Base (a payment/auth requirement), a bounded 5-20 minute duration, and a return format of structured blocks plus Markdown. It stops short of explaining how the payment is settled or what the 'structured blocks' contain.

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 name and price, then scope, then duration/output. No sentence is wasted, though the trailing 'Gym, CrossFit, running' fragment is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it produces, its cost, its duration bounds, its session/prehab scope, and the return format (blocks + Markdown). The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance against the workout-generating siblings.

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 coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: session types map to 'session', prehab areas map to 'focus', and '5-20 minutes' bounds 'minutes', but it never states that 'focus' is an array or clarifies whether 'Gym, CrossFit, running' corresponds to the 'style' parameter. The mapping is inferable but not explicit.

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 names a specific verb+resource (generates a targeted warm-up) and scopes it precisely with enumerated session types (strength, metcon, engine, speed run, zone 2) and prehab areas. An agent can separate this from generate_workout, coach_programme and race_pace_plan without opening any 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?

Usage context is implied: a warm-up matched to a session type, 5-20 minutes, with optional prehab. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among siblings (e.g. vs generate_workout), so the agent must infer positioning.

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