List scheduled workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the filtering semantics beyond the annotations: completed activities, naps and badges are dropped, and the surrounding months' grid days are excluded. It does not discuss pagination or auth, but the exclusion rules are the important behavioral trait here.

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?

Front-loaded with what is listed, followed by exclusions and then the sibling routing in a logical order. The second sentence is dense but every clause carries a distinct, actionable rule; there is no 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would face: what qualifies as a result, what is silently filtered out, and how the returned schedule_id is used. Nothing needed to call it correctly is 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (year, month) are documented with ranges and examples in the schema. The description only reinforces the monthly scope and adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb (list), a precise resource (workouts scheduled on the Garmin calendar), and a scope (one month), then states the returned fields (schedule_id, workout_id, date). An agent can distinguish it from list_workouts and list_activities immediately from the text 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?

It explicitly routes to alternatives with the selecting condition: use list_activities for completed sessions on those dates, and list_workouts for saved workouts whether scheduled or not. It also flags the downstream consumer ('The schedule_id is what unschedule_workout takes'), which is prescriptive guidance rather than a restatement of the name.

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