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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results are returned oldest first with date/title/status, a single day may hold multiple workouts, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. It stops short of noting pagination or result caps.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then the sibling pointer and the auth note. Four short sentences with little waste, though 'with status' and 'date, title and status' overlap slightly.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does explain the fields and sort order, plus the auth requirement. For a four-parameter read tool this is essentially complete; only edge behaviors like pagination are unaddressed.

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 schema already documents client_id, from, to and the status enum. The description restates the date-range and status scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (workouts) plus the exact scope: a client's workout calendar restricted to a date range with status. It distinguishes itself from truecoach_get_workout in the same breath, so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (use get_workout for exercises and logged results), which tells the agent when to reach for this list view instead. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites beyond the implied 'this is the overview call'.

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