get_training_plan_workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond them: the underlying GraphQL call and its required arguments, the fact that Garmin chooses the window size, and that an empty array signals no enrolled plan. It does not cover auth or error behavior, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler, but the lead is internal GraphQL plumbing ('POSTs GraphQL trainingPlanScalar...') rather than the tool's purpose, which is weak front-loading for a selector-facing definition.

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 usefully describes the returned DTO shape and the empty-array case, which is valuable. However, it omits when-to-use guidance, which matters given many closely related training-plan siblings.

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 only 50%: calendarDate is documented, but the nested options (lang, firstDayOfWeek) are not. The description partially compensates by revealing that all three arguments are REQUIRED by Garmin even though the schema marks options as optional. It still does not explain what lang or firstDayOfWeek actually affect.

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 states a specific resource and scope: it fetches workout schedule entries for enrolled training plans, broken out by plan. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_training_plans or get_training_plan_by_id, but the return shape and 'one entry per enrolled plan' framing give an agent enough to identify it.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_training_plans, get_adaptive_training_plan_by_id, or get_scheduled_workouts. The note that 'Garmin picks the window' is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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