read_workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: explicit newest-first ordering, the returned field set, and the fact that weights/volume inherit the profile `unit`, which helps the agent interpret output.

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, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then filters and unit. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place since no output schema exists. No 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields returned. Filters and unit context are covered. It could still note pagination/truncation behavior (delegated to the limit param) more explicitly, but nothing essential is missing for 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 coverage is 80% and the schema documents limit truncation, exercise id format, and date format. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: `from`/`to` are inclusive, and the weight/volume unit comes from the profile. That is a genuine supplement over the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a list of logged workouts, newest first, with enumerated return fields. An agent can distinguish it from the singular read_workout sibling by the plural resource and ordering cue, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 notes that results can be filtered by date range (inclusive), routine or exercise, which implies when the tool is useful. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this list over read_workout (singular), read_exercise_history, or read_training_summary, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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