get_training_plan_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the compatibility behavior, the current-week-only limitation for adaptive plans, possible empty results for future dates, and that the returned count includes rest days.

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?

Every sentence adds value: the alias and preference are front-loaded, behavioral caveats follow, and the parameter explanation is structured as a clear Args section. It is detailed but not bloated.

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 tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, alternatives, behavior, caveats, and parameter format. Nothing essential is missing, and return-value details are appropriately delegated to the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that calendar_date is a 'Reference date in YYYY-MM-DD format' and that it returns the week's workouts. This gives the agent the format and functional meaning that the schema omits.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a compatibility alias for get_garmin_coach_workouts and states it 'returns the same Garmin Coach/training-plan data.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and clearly distinguishes it from the preferred sibling tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs agents to prefer get_garmin_coach_workouts for new requests, warns against calling both tools in one request, and frames this tool as legacy. This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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