TrainingPeaks-MCP

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. It reveals the 90-day limit constraint and emphasizes precise date queries, which are important behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when the date range exceeds 90 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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical constraints and guidance. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 list operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the date range constraint well but doesn't address return format, pagination, error conditions, or how results are structured. The 90-day limit is helpful but more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions date range constraints but doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what's in the schema descriptions (which already emphasize precise date queries). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List workouts in date range' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (workouts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tp_get_workout (singular) and tp_get_workout_prs by focusing on listing multiple workouts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tp_get_fitness or other potential list operations.

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 provides clear context for usage with the 'Max 90 days' constraint and guidance to 'Query ONLY the specific days needed'. It implies this is for date-range queries but doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like tp_get_workout (singular) or tp_get_workout_prs. No misleading guidance is present.

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