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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive traits, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the ordering matches what the client sees, results are client-entered (coach-entered for In-Person clients), missed workouts return no results, and a Cotlet API key with access to this app is required. That auth and edge-case disclosure goes 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 description is front-loaded with the resource contents and then the behavioral caveats, with little waste. The sentences about results ownership and the missed-workout case are slightly discursive but each adds interpretive value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately characterizes the return payload (title, warmup, exercises/circuits, cooldown, results) plus edge cases and auth needs. An agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though the absence of any usage routing against list_workouts is a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter workout_id is already documented as coming from list_workouts, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (workout) and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, warmup, exercises and circuits, cooldown, and logged results. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_workouts and create_workout without opening 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?

It implies a single-workout retrieval keyed by workout_id, and notes that a missed workout has no results, which helps the agent interpret output. However, it never states when to use this versus list_workouts or create_workout, nor any prerequisites for choosing it, leaving usage to inference.

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