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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds ownership scoping and exclusions, providing additional behavioral context without contradicting annotations. It doesn't discuss pagination or return format, but with annotations covering safety, this is a solid addition.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('List the workouts this user owns') and followed by a parenthetical clarification. Every part earns its place and there is no 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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers what the tool lists and what it excludes, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. No significant gaps remain for this simple list tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description doesn't attempt to add meaningless parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the workouts this user owns', and explicitly distinguishes from shared and ad-hoc workouts. It clearly separates this tool from siblings like list-scheduled-workouts-tool and list-workout-history-tool by defining its scope.

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 gives clear context about what is excluded (shared and ad-hoc workouts), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to use them. The guidance is implied rather than directly pointing to siblings, so it lacks explicit when/when-not routing.

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