WHOOP Workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it supports start/end filters, uses WHOOP pagination, and requires read:workout authorization. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 three short sentences with the core purpose first, followed by filtering/pagination behavior and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of title or schema details.

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 an output schema present and 89% schema description coverage, the return format and parameter meanings are already well documented. The description supplies the remaining operational context: auth scope, filtering, and pagination behavior. Given the read-only annotations and absence of required parameters, this is a complete enough definition for reliable 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 description coverage is 89%, well above 80%, and every parameter already has a descriptive schema entry including defaults, ranges, formats, and enum meanings. The description's mention of 'start/end filters and WHOOP pagination' is a useful summary, but it adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource, 'WHOOP workouts', and immediately adds the relevant batch behaviors (start/end filters, WHOOP pagination). This unambiguously distinguishes it from single-item tools like whoop_get_workout and from sibling list tools for other resources such as whoop_list_sleeps and whoop_list_cycles.

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 clearly communicates this is for listing workouts over a time range with pagination, which is a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource-specific wording and sibling tool names make the appropriate use case easy to infer. It also provides a prerequisite, 'Requires read:workout scope,' which helps the agent decide if the call is currently possible.

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