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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: id returns at most one record, name returns every match each with its folder, and an empty workouts array is returned on no match.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds non-redundant information about parameter rules and return multiplicity. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still supplies the multiplicity and empty-result behavior an agent needs to interpret that output. Nothing needed to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics the schema does not: the mutual-exclusion rule (either/or, not both) and the differing cardinality of results per parameter. This clarifies the XOR constraint that a flat two-optional-string schema leaves ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (workout template detail) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains (display names, sets, loads, rest modes, supersets, RPE, percentages). This differentiates it from the list-oriented sibling get_workout_templates without needing to open either schema.

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?

Explains the selection rule between the two parameters (either workout_id or exact workout_name, but not both) and the consequence of each choice. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool for listing templates, so the when-to-use-this-vs-sibling guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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