get_garmin_coach_workouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It details what fields are returned, that rest days are included in the count, that adaptive plans expose only the currently generated window, that UUIDs versus numeric identifiers vary by plan family, and that device-generated Daily Suggested Workouts are not synthesized. This gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's behavior.

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 description is detailed but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers behavioral caveats, sibling differentiation, identifier handling, and parameter semantics in a logical order. Despite its length, there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the lack of annotations, and the single parameter, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what is returned, limitations, plan-family differences, parameter format, and the relationship to sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means it does not need to describe the return structure in further detail.

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 description must compensate, and it does. It documents calendar_date with the required YYYY-MM-DD format and explains the semantic effect: it returns the week's workouts. This is exactly the additional meaning the agent needs beyond the bare schema definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Get Garmin Coach workouts around the given date." It clearly distinguishes this tool from the legacy get_training_plan_workouts sibling by explicitly naming it and explaining both return the same data. It also clarifies what the tool does not return (device-generated Daily Suggested Workouts).

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: "This is the preferred tool for Garmin Coach requests. The legacy get_training_plan_workouts tool returns the same data; do not call both." It also explains the limitation for adaptive plans and why future dates may return no workouts, so the agent knows when and how to use the tool appropriately.

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