get_scheduled_workouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results include scheduled dates and completion status, which is useful, but it does not explicitly disclose read-only behavior, pagination behavior, or limitations of the 'curated summary list'. The 'Get' phrasing implies a read operation, yet a stronger explicit statement would improve transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and scope, followed by a brief return-behavior clarification and parameter format documentation. There is no fluff or repetitive schema copying.

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 query with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and provides the parameter formats. It lacks only minor contextual details such as date range inclusivity, timezone handling, or any data-availability caveats, but nothing essential blocks correct invocation.

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 for the bare schema. It does so by documenting both parameters with their intended role and format: 'start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format' and 'end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format'. It stops short of clarifying whether the range is inclusive or the maximum allowed span, but it provides the critical calling details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get scheduled workouts between two dates', which clearly identifies the action and object. It further defines the output as workouts scheduled on the Garmin Connect calendar with scheduled dates and completion status, distinguishing it from generic workout retrieval siblings like get_workouts or get_workout_by_id.

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 clearly indicates a date-range use case via 'between two dates' and clarifies the target is calendar-scheduled workouts. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as get_workouts, schedule_workouts, or get_training_plan_workouts, nor does it list exclusions.

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