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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: no note that a missing/unknown id behaves one way or another, no auth or rate-limit context, and no indication of the returned record's shape beyond the word "one".

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource before the lookup key. It is arguably clipped to the point of being a fragment, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is the minimum viable amount of text. It leaves the return shape and unknown-id behavior unaddressed, which is tolerable but not thorough.

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?

There is a single parameter fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's "by id" restates the schema rather than clarifying the integer-or-string union or what happens when the id does not resolve.

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 resource and scope ("one workout from the library") and the lookup key ("by id"). It implicitly distinguishes a single-library-workout fetch from the list tool get_workouts and from get_scheduled_workout_by_id, though it never names those siblings outright.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer from "by id" that an id must already be known and from "library" that this is not the scheduled-workout path; neither point is stated.

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