get_adaptive_workout

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: coach workouts lack a `workoutId` and a sibling endpoint 404s for them, which prevents a failed call. It stops short of describing return shape, pagination, or failure modes for bad uuids.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the endpoint and main payload description, then the disambiguation and uuid sourcing. Every sentence carries information, though the raw URL path is somewhat implementation-flavored and slightly denser than needed for an agent.

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 helpfully names the returned content (segments, steps, estimatedTrainingEffect) and explains the uuid's origin and the sibling-tool limitation. Combined with readOnly/openWorld annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only return format/error behavior is left implicit.

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 0% for the single required `workoutUuid` param, so the description must compensate, and it does: it tells the agent where to source the uuid (`getTrainingPlanWorkouts`/`getScheduledWorkoutSummaries`) and that it is a coach/adaptive workout identifier. It does not add format details, but the sourcing guidance is genuinely useful for a 1-param tool.

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 (GETs) and a precise resource: the `/workout-service/fbt-adaptive/{uuid}` Garmin Coach workout, and enumerates its contents (segments, steps, estimatedTrainingEffect). It explicitly distinguishes itself from `getWorkoutById`, 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?

Names the alternative tool (`getWorkoutById`) and explains why it cannot be used for these workouts (no `workoutId`; `/workout-service/workout/{uuid}` returns 404). It further tells the agent exactly where to obtain the required uuid: `getTrainingPlanWorkouts` or `getScheduledWorkoutSummaries`. This is explicit when-to-use and how-to-source guidance.

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