get_garmin_coach_workouts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does a good job disclosing that future dates may return no workouts, that count includes rest days, that rest-day UUIDs may return minimal detail, and that no synthesis of Daily Suggested Workouts occurs. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the getter semantics are clear from the wording.

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 fairly long with multiple explanatory paragraphs, but each section adds meaningful context: return fields, plan limitations, sibling comparison, and identifier guidance. The structure is readable and useful, though slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 description covers the primary input semantics, output content, plan-family differences, rest-day behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. It does not specify the exact response schema or possible error conditions, but the provided context is sufficient for typical use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains calendar_date format and that the returned data covers the week around that date. However, it does not clarify week boundaries, timezone handling, or any edge cases like invalid dates, which leaves some ambiguity for a bare string parameter.

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 that the tool returns Garmin Coach/training-plan workouts for a given date. It also distinguishes the tool from the legacy get_training_plan_workouts sibling, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the preferred use case for Garmin Coach requests, warns against calling both this tool and get_training_plan_workouts, and clarifies that Daily Suggested Workouts are not available through this endpoint. This gives concrete when-to-use guidance.

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