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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'View only' note is redundant. The description adds the calendar-view scope, which is useful. However, the false claim that no create/edit/delete tool exists contradicts the sibling tool list and could mislead an agent about the environment, though it does not contradict the annotations themselves.

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 first sentence is concise and informative, but the second sentence ('View only — no create/edit/delete tool exists yet.') is unnecessary (redundant with annotations) and factually incorrect given sibling tools. The structure front-loads the core purpose but includes a misleading addendum.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and scope, and the output schema exists to detail return values. However, the misleading note about mutation tools could cause an agent to incorrectly assume no mutation capabilities exist, and there's no mention of any filtering or options (though none are parameterized). For a read-only list tool with no params, this is mostly complete but the false statement is a notable gap.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially), the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, but it clarifies the scope of the output (scheduled workouts and calendar view), which 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 verb (list), resource (scheduled workouts), and adds scope ('this user's', 'recurring/one-off calendar entries', 'this month's calendar view'). It distinguishes from generic list tools by specifying scheduled workouts, though the phrase 'no create/edit/delete tool exists yet' is misleading given sibling tools exist, slightly clouding clarity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-workouts-tool or other scheduled-workout tools. The description implies it's for viewing scheduled entries, but does not name exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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