get_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral facts: only completed workouts are returned, and both date bounds are inclusive. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, auth, or what happens with an empty or inverted range.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the format/scope parenthetical second. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, most requirements are met: both parameters are explained and the filter semantics are clear. What remains missing is how the result set is ordered or bounded and any acknowledgment of the get_recent_workouts alternative, which leaves the agent to determine sequencing and pagination on its own.

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%, so the schema gives only bare 'Start Date' and 'End Date' titles. The description compensates well by specifying the ISO YYYY-MM-DD format and clarifying that both endpoints are inclusive, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise guess at.

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 the resource (completed workouts) and the scope (a bounded date range), which distinguishes it from get_recent_workouts by implication. It omits an explicit verb and never names the sibling it differs from, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 only implied: the date-range framing suggests this is the tool for bounded historical retrieval versus get_recent_workouts, but the description neither says when to prefer it nor states any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the choice from the parameter set alone.

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