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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the data comes from the watch and applies to a finished workout, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, unfinished workouts, or response 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states what is returned, the data source, and the scope. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with full parameter documentation and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. The only minor gap is that return format or edge-case behavior is not described, but no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward.

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 100%, and the single logId parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from list_student_sessions. The description does not add anything beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns heart rate and calories recorded by the watch for one finished workout. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling get_workout_health_summary.

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 phrase 'for one finished workout' implies the intended use case, distinguishing it from aggregate or live-session tools. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives like get_workout_health_summary or get_workout_session, leaving the agent to infer.

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