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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: id returns at most one workout, name returns every matching workout, and results include the folder. This is meaningful context without contradicting 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and output shape, followed by lookup rules. Every sentence adds value; the model-summary note is slightly extra but not distracting.

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 the read-only annotations, output schema presence, and simple two-parameter input, the description is complete. It covers output shape, identification approach, matching behavior, and per-result folder context. No critical details are 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 parameters are already documented. The description adds important semantics: mutual exclusivity, preference for workout_id when available, exact-match requirement for name, and different cardinality results. This goes beyond the schema.

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: 'Get the full structured detail of a workout template.' It also specifies the exact output shape, listing representative fields, which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like get_workout_templates.

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 guidance on identifier selection: use workout_id when available, otherwise exact workout_name, and not both. It also clarifies cardinality differences. It does not explicitly route to or away from sibling tools, but the lookup guidance is strong.

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