Get workout PRs

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

The description adds the behavior that an empty list is returned when no PRs exist, and scopes the operation to completed workouts. With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, this is useful supplemental context.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides the empty-list behavior and the alternative for period-based PRs. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The combination of a clear purpose, empty-list return behavior, and explicit alternative make the description reasonably complete for a simple read-only query. Without an output schema, mentioning what fields a PR record contains would have been extra, but not strictly necessary since the description scopes the data sufficiently.

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?

The schema covers the athlete parameter (coach accounts, omit for own profile) but leaves workout_id undocumented. The description implies workout_id refers to a completed workout, adding some semantic clarity, but it does not explain format or how the athlete parameter interacts with the result, so compensation is partial.

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 ('List') and resource ('personal records set during one completed workout'), clearly distinguishing it from tp_get_peaks, which covers period-based bests.

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 states when to use the tool (for one completed workout) and points to tp_get_peaks as the alternative when the athlete's bests across a period are needed. This is clear usage guidance with an alternative named.

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