get_plan_compliance

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the two-API-call cost, the exact pairing mechanism (paired_activity_id / paired_event_id), the one-event-per-activity rule, how missed/unplanned/out-of-range events are classified, the completion formula, and the guide method reference. This is unusually rich operational context.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first line, followed by dense but relevant edge-case rules. It is long, and the linking/formula detail could be compressed, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs to interpret results.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to explain return semantics (planned vs. actual duration/load with deviation %, completion ratio, separate listing of unlinked activities), which is exactly what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain around result format/pagination.

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 coverage is 100% with self-documenting start_date/end_date/athlete_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'athlete's local date' nuance for upcoming workouts but does not clarify date semantics for the parameters themselves beyond what the schema provides.

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 (compare) and two concrete resources (planned workouts vs. activities done) scoped to a date range, which is a distinct deliverable. It does not explicitly name or contrast with potential sibling alternatives like compare_workouts or analyze_workout_execution, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 opener 'Use to compare planned workouts with the activities done in a date range' gives clear intended usage and the read-only caveat. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent needs, leaving the reader to infer the alternative from the sibling list.

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