get_workout_surveys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the response scale (1 worst to 5 best), which is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields. However, it says nothing about missing surveys, behavior for unknown/invalid workout IDs, or whether results are ordered or one-per-workout, which matter for a batch-read tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, with no filler. The scale sentence earns its place because it is necessary to interpret the values.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the payload contains and how to read the numbers, which is the core need. It is still missing the input-side contract (list of workout IDs, error/omission behavior), which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single parameter (saved_workout_ids) is completely undocumented in the schema. The description says answers are 'for saved workouts' but never states that the parameter is a list of integer IDs, whether an unmatched ID errors or is skipped, or whether results are keyed back to those IDs.

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 names a specific resource (readiness survey answers) and enumerates exactly which data points are returned (sleep, mood, energy, stress, soreness), so an agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling write path (submit_survey), leaving that differentiation implicit.

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?

The phrase 'for saved workouts' hints at the input scope, but there is no statement of when to call this versus related siblings like get_workout, get_workout_history, or submit_survey. No preconditions, no exclusions, and no named alternatives.

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