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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: dates are plain calendar dates exactly as scheduled (no timezone/offset drift), and entries carry an ownership type (one_off, routine, program). That is meaningful semantic disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 core purpose is in the first sentence, followed by the two pieces of information that actually matter (date semantics, entry types), then the argument. Efficient and front-loaded, though the type enumeration is slightly verbose for a definition that also has an output schema.

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, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it correctly focuses on the non-obvious semantics (calendar-date representation, ownership types, look-ahead range). Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single days_ahead parameter is already fully documented with its default and max. The description's Args block simply restates that text verbatim, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

Front-loads a specific verb and resource: 'Get upcoming scheduled workouts, starting with today.' The scope (forward-looking calendar, starting today) is unambiguous and separates it from sibling readers like get_workout_detail or get_programs, which return a single workout or program catalogue rather than a dated schedule.

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 explains what comes back but never says when to reach for this instead of get_weekly_training_status, get_workout_detail, or the schedule_workout/unschedule_workout mutators. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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