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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine information beyond that: the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and an explicit statement of what is excluded from the payload (GPS, account fields, raw responses), which tells the agent the result is a trimmed projection rather than full records.

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 short sentences with no filler; the 'newest first' ordering is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given how little else is said.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a paginated list tool with two undocumented parameters and an ambiguous boundary against list_workouts, the definition leaves gaps an agent would need filled before calling it confidently.

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 0% and the description never mentions the two parameters. 'limit' and 'start' have defaults, ranges, and obvious pagination intent from their names, but the description offers no clarification of offset behavior or page-size semantics, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 names the resource ('Recent activities, newest first') and the shaping of the payload, but it never states an explicit retrieval verb and never distinguishes 'activities' from the sibling 'list_workouts' / 'list_scheduled_workouts'. An agent must guess whether an activity and a workout are the same entity here.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context, and no reference to any of the four sibling tools. The agent gets no signal about when this tool is preferred over list_workouts or search_exercises.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context in the 31-day maximum range, but it does not say what happens when the range is exceeded (error vs. truncation) or how results are ordered.

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 filler; every clause (schedule IDs, workout IDs, 31-day cap) carries information an agent needs.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool whose main risk is the range limit, the definition omits the over-limit behavior and any differentiation from list_workouts, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 carry the param burden. It does clarify that the two date parameters define a bounded range capped at 31 days, but adds nothing about date format, inclusivity of endpoints, or timezone handling beyond the schema's 'format: date'.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List workout schedule IDs and associated workout IDs'), which is clearly narrower than the sibling list_workouts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_workouts or preview_workout, so an agent must infer the distinction from the entity names 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 only usage constraint given is the 31-day range cap; there is no statement of when to choose this over list_workouts or preview_workout, nor any stated precondition for the date inputs. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat about workout mutability ("only [AI] workouts can be changed"), though it sits oddly on a list tool and doesn't explain pagination behavior or coverage across the account.

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 short sentences with the returned-fields summary front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence is slightly tangential to a listing operation but is short enough to earn its place as context.

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 needn't be explained, and the annotations cover safety. However, the pagination contract (defaults, max page size, how to page through) is absent from both the description and the schema, leaving a real gap for an agent listing potentially many workouts.

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% for the two parameters (limit, start), so the description carries the burden of explaining paging — and it says nothing about limit, offset, or defaults. An agent must infer from parameter names alone that this is a paginated endpoint capped at 50 items.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("List workout names, IDs, sport and duration") and it enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_activities or list_scheduled_workouts, so differentiation relies on the word "workouts" 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?

No statement of when to call this versus list_activities, list_scheduled_workouts, or preview_workout, and no prerequisites. The second sentence about which workouts can be changed hints at a downstream workflow but never says to use this tool for that purpose.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: no auth or upload side effects, and that duration totals deliberately exclude distance and repetition steps, which explains computed output rather than restating 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information (purpose, auth/upload behavior, units, nesting and totals rules). Front-loaded with the action and free of filler.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the tricky structural rules an agent could get wrong. Slight gap: nothing warns about the 50-step/20-item limits or what a validation failure looks like, though the output schema likely covers the latter.

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 carry the load, and it delivers the highest-risk semantics: pace is seconds/km and HR is bpm for target ranges, and repeats nest only one level deep. It leaves other nested fields (reps, skip_last_rest, weight_lb, sport) undocumented, but their names and enum values are largely self-explanatory.

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 pair (validate and preview) against a specific resource (a workout), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It is clearly not a lister like the sibling tools, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

"Without authentication or uploading" implies this is the dry-run path before a real create, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/closed-world/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two facts annotations cannot: the catalog is bundled (static, not external) and results must be reused verbatim downstream. It does not say how matching works or whether results are ranked.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the operational constraint is front-loaded after the purpose. Nothing is wasted.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the exact-name contract is covered. But with two undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the search semantics an agent needs to call this correctly are absent.

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 carries the full burden, yet it never mentions 'term' (is it substring, prefix, fuzzy?) or 'limit'. An agent must guess whether 'bench' matches 'bench press' or only exact tokens.

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 ('Search the bundled strength catalog'), which is unambiguous. Sibling tools are all list_*/preview_* on different domains, so the resource alone differentiates it, though the description never names them.

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 second sentence implies downstream usage ('use the exact returned name in an exercise step'), which is genuinely useful routing context. However, there is no statement of when to search versus when the catalog is unnecessary, and no alternative is named.

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