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's added value is payload shape — every set included, weights converted to the person's unit, and a version field returned — but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id or whether the version is a concurrency token.

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?

A single compact clause with no filler, front-loading the scope ('One routine') and then the payload contents. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 no output schema, the description does carry some of the return-value burden by naming sets, unit, and version. However, for a lookup-by-id tool it omits the not-found case and the meaning of 'version', which an agent needs to handle results correctly.

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 50%: the unit parameter is documented in the schema (enum lb/kg, defaults to the person's own unit), and the description's phrase 'in the person's unit' reinforces that default. The required id parameter has no schema description and the description does not clarify its format or lookup semantics, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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?

Names the resource and scope precisely: 'One routine with every set, in the person's unit, and its version' tells an agent this is a single-record fetch that returns the full set list, normalized weights, and a version field. It is clearly distinct from save/delete siblings and from get_workout by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the required id or of what to do when the routine does not exist, and no routing to alternatives such as trainrec_get_workout or a list tool. Usage is only implied by the word 'One'.

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