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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the session must be 'completed' and specifying that the result includes sets, PBs, and milestones, which helps the agent set expectations beyond the annotation fields.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction about finding ids is directly actionable.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns, that it targets a completed session, and where to obtain a valid session_id. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents session_id and its source. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose by saying 'by id' and pointing to list_workout_history, but it adds little new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Get full detail') and a specific resource ('one completed workout session'), while naming the key contents (sets, PBs, milestones). It also differentiates from list_workout_history by emphasizing full detail for a single session, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named get-workout-tool.

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 description directly instructs the agent to use list_workout_history to find ids, which covers the main prerequisite for calling this tool. It does not mention exclusions or compare against alternatives like get-workout-tool, but the guidance is sufficient for the common case.

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