Get Hevy Exercise History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that date filters are ISO timestamps with timezones, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, or whether the full lifetime history is returned. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the key qualifier (optional ISO timestamp filtering) placed where it is read first. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. What remains missing is the meaning/scope of 'history' (which sets or sessions, time span, ordering) and exercise_id semantics, but for a three-parameter read tool the description is close to complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does for two of three parameters by specifying the accepted format (ISO timestamps with timezones) for start_date/end_date. It omits any semantics for exercise_id (required) and does not state range inclusivity or behavior when only one bound is supplied, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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 and resource ('Get Hevy's exercise history') plus a scope modifier (optional timestamp filtering). It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like get_exercise_progression or search_exercises, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which to use for progression vs. raw history.

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?

No when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to call this versus get_exercise_progression or search_exercises, no prerequisites (e.g., valid exercise_id) are mentioned, and no exclusion cases are given. The only routing hint is the word 'history' itself.

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