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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: 'Requires OAuth' and the implicit scope of the caller's own team. It does not mention pagination defaults or result-size behavior, which is a minor gap given the per_page maximum of 100.

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?

Four tight sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, trigger phrasing, auth requirement, exclusion. The purpose and the exclusion bracket the text, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded and restated at the end.

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 present, return values need no explanation, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 7-parameter filtered-list tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves all filtering and pagination behavior undocumented, which is a meaningful completeness gap for practical invocation.

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 0% for 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing: team_id, page, per_page, sort_by, sort_order, locale, and search_text are never mentioned or given semantics. An agent must guess, for example, whether team_id overrides the authenticated user's default team or whether search_text is server-side filtering.

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 workouts for the authenticated user's team') and scopes it to the caller's team via Internal API. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (list_sample_workouts), so an agent can separate it from the many other list_/get_team_ tools without opening the 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 concrete trigger phrasing ('my team's workouts, my team workouts, or their organization workout library') plus an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative tool ('Not for curated sample workouts or guest embed demo (use list_sample_workouts)'). Nothing is left to inference about when to pick this over a sibling.

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