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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned data, including how repeats are nested (8 x [1 km, 60 s recovery]), which tells the agent what to expect from parsing. It does not mention behavior for missing/invalid ids, but with annotations carrying safety that is a minor gap.

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?

Two short sentences plus a one-line arg note. The repeats example is the most information-dense part and is placed where it matters, with no filler.

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 explained in prose. The description covers what is returned conceptually and its one parameter, leaving only edge-case behavior (unknown workout_id) unstated.

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 0%, but there is exactly one required integer parameter, and the description documents it as 'The workout's id,' which is sufficient for an agent to populate it. No format or source guidance (e.g., where ids come from) is added 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?

Names a specific resource — the steps of one saved or scheduled workout — and describes what each step contains (distance or time and target), which clearly separates it from list_workouts or get_plan. The retrieval verb is only implied by the phrasing, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch the detail of a single workout once you have its id, versus listing workouts or reading a plan. The description never states when to prefer this over get_plan or list_workouts, nor what happens if the workout is scheduled versus saved.

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