get_scheduled_workouts

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. The description adds the non-obvious fact that `month` is converted from 1-indexed input to 0-indexed on the wire, but this is input-handling detail rather than tool behavior; it says nothing about scope, pagination, or what a 'scheduled workout' record contains.

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 single sentence is dense with zero filler, so it is efficiently sized. But it is not front-loaded with purpose — the one thing an agent needs first — and reads like an implementation note rather than a tool description.

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 two-required-parameter query tool with no output schema and three-plus look-alike siblings, the description omits purpose, scope, and differentiation entirely. Annotations cover safety only, leaving the operational picture incomplete.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does provide real value: `month` is 1-12, converted to 0-indexed on the wire, and `year>=2000` is validated. However, it never explains what these parameters scope (e.g., which period's scheduled workouts are returned) or the accepted string forms despite the schema allowing integer|string.

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 never states what the tool does. It contains only parameter validation notes (`month` 1-12, `year>=2000`), so an agent must infer the purpose from the name alone. It does nothing to distinguish this from get_next_scheduled_workout, get_scheduled_workout_by_id, or get_scheduled_workout_summaries.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With at least three closely-named sibling tools for scheduled workouts, the absence of routing guidance is a serious gap.

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