get_training_plan_workouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. It discloses the alias behavior, the fact that adaptive plans only expose the current generated week, the possibility that future dates return no workouts, and that the returned count includes rest days. These non-obvious behavioral details are highly useful to an agent.

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 compact yet information-dense, with a clear alias statement, usage guidance, edge-case caveats, and an Args section. Every sentence contributes actionable information with 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?

Given an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The description covers the legacy status, preferred alternative, date format, plan-window limitation, rest-day behavior, and how to route identifiers to get_workout_by_id. This is complete for correct selection and 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?

The schema only provides a parameter name and type with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by specifying the YYYY-MM-DD format, the reference-date semantics, and that it returns that week's workouts.

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 identifies the tool as a compatibility alias for get_garmin_coach_workouts and states it returns the same Garmin Coach/training-plan data. This precise resource and explicit sibling relationship distinguish it from the many sibling 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?

It explicitly instructs agents to prefer get_garmin_coach_workouts for new requests, labels this tool as legacy, and warns against calling both for one request. This gives unambiguous when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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