get_workout_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load and does so reasonably: it discloses order (oldest first), inclusive date boundaries, the default window, future-date behavior for planned blocks, and that rows carry ids for chaining. It omits whether results are capped or paginated, which matters for a history query, but the core behavioral profile is present.

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?

Four dense sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the core operation. Even the trailing line about ids is actionable because it tells the agent how to chain to sibling tools.

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 no explanation, and the read-only nature is self-evident. Still missing is how the date parameters interact with days_back and whether results are bounded — gaps an agent would hit on a first call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does partially: it fixes the YYYY-MM-DD format, inclusivity, and the days_back default meaning. It does not explain precedence when start_date/end_date are supplied alongside days_back, or whether one date alone is valid — the key ambiguity for a 3-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+resource: sessions scheduled between two dates, returned oldest first. It is clearly distinct from the singular get_workout and from get_recent_exercises, though it never names a sibling explicitly. An agent knows exactly what data comes back.

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?

Offers useful context — 'defaults to the last days_back days' and 'future dates work too, which is how to review a planned block' — and hints that returned ids feed other tools. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to use get_workout instead of get_workout_history; usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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