get_published_workouts

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

Goes well past the annotations by explaining what the returned data means: calculated loads only for today/future, the exact 1RM source, per-exercise unavailable status when RM/unit/identity is missing or read fails, no load for past dates, and a limited personal-history coverage caveat. It also flags source content as untrusted, which is a meaningful safety disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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 is front-loaded, but the text is a run-on of compressed clauses ('Original values, all publications and labeled variants remain', 'Missing RM, unit, identity or read failure has per-exercise unavailable status') that take re-reading. Nearly all content earns its place, yet the density hurts scanability.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the behavioral edge cases an agent needs: past vs future load behavior, degraded per-exercise status, and data-source coverage limits. Nothing essential to correct invocation appears missing.

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 50%: className is already documented in the schema, and the description repeats much of that ('classSource reports which applied, classNamesAvailable lists the classes published that day' does add value about the response). The genuinely new information is that date is gym-local and className must be exact, which is a modest addition over a full date-format schema.

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 first clause names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve published workout alternatives') and pins scope to 'gym-local date and exact className'. It is clearly distinguishable from get_published_workouts_range in spirit, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional rule for the optional parameter: 'omit className to use the class configured for the gym, and pass it only when the account holder names another class.' That is real when/when-not guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over get_published_workouts_range.

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