get_workout_frequency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the truncation behavior via 'May include a `warning` field if results were truncated' and explains the default for `since`. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any other side effects, though the name implies a safe read.

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 primary output, then parameter and warning details. Every word is informative, with no redundancy.

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 main output (per-week counts, streak, longest-gap), the parameter, and the warning field, which is adequate for a tool with no output schema. It could additionally clarify what 'streak' means (e.g., consecutive weeks) but is otherwise complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter, `since`, is fully explained: 'ISO 8601, default 90 days ago.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's regex pattern by clarifying the format and default value. With 0% schema coverage, the description effectively compensates.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Per-week workout counts with streak and longest-gap statistics.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_workout_count (likely a total count) and list_workouts (raw data). The resource and output are specific and 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 implies usage by describing the specialization (per-week stats with streaks and gaps), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives. It mentions the `since` parameter and default, giving context for typical use, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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