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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minor context (ownership) but does not disclose additional behavior beyond the annotations. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 one sentence that efficiently packs the action, resource, scope, detail level, and a usage hint. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, how to obtain the ID, and is consistent with the annotations. It lacks explicit exclusions but those are not necessary given the tool's narrow scope.

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 100%, so the parameter workout_id is fully documented in the schema itself, including its source from list_workouts. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 the action (Get full detail), the resource (one workout), the scope (this user owns), and the identifier (by id). It explicitly lists the details included (exercises, sets, schedule), distinguishing it from other get-type siblings like get-stats-tool and get-workout-history-session-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 provides explicit guidance to use list_workouts to find ids, establishing a clear prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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