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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds real context beyond them: sample-* ids need no auth, team paths require API entitlement, and two different backends serve the data. It stops short of error behavior or rate limits, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the return content and usage trigger are front-loaded before the routing/entitlement details. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, yet the description still summarizes them. Auth, entitlement, and backend routing are covered; the only gap is the unexplained locale parameter, which matters for a localized content API.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does a good job for workout_id by explaining the sample-*, connected-team, and org id forms, but the locale parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two params entirely undocumented.

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 workout metadata, preview assets, and summary') and names the exact content it yields. It also disambiguates from siblings by referencing get_team_workout for connected team workouts, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use when the user selects a workout or asks for details about a specific workout') plus id-type routing rules: sample-* ids, connected team workout ids, and other org ids. It names the alternative (get_team_workout) and the entitlement precondition for the Content API path.

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