get_workouts

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: records are returned exactly as stored, optional newer keys may be absent, nothing is fabricated, and the summary applies over all matches. This is precisely the extra non-obvious behavior agents benefit from.

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 long enough to capture filters, pagination, caching behavior, optional fields, and summary semantics, but every clause contributes. The core query action and paging semantics are 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 5-parameter read-only tool with no output/output schema, this description covers the important call/response semantics: which filters are allowed, how pagination works, what shape the records take, and what the summary provides. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already describes all five parameters with examples, defaults, and format. The description restates them compactly and adds only marginal grouping/narrative value, so it earns the baseline 3 for a schema with high coverage.

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 states a concrete action ('Query'), a specific resource ('the workouts cache'), and enumerates filters and pagination. The scope is clearly workout data, which distinguishes it from sibling metric/trend/period tools.

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 clear context: this is for querying raw cached workout records within date/activity/filter bounds with pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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