icu_get_upcoming_workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it filters out non-workout calendar entries, returns calendar event IDs (not library template IDs), and clarifies the relationship to event and library tools. It does not contradict any 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 efficient: two short paragraphs with no fluff. The primary purpose and scoping are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and routing. Every sentence earns its place and aids decision-making.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the rich annotations, the description covers everything needed: what it returns, how to interpret the IDs, when to use it, and when to use alternatives. It is complete for correct invocation and selection among many siblings.

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% – both `limit` and `athlete_id` have descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters; it only implicitly references the use case. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool fetches planned workout entries from the upcoming calendar, explicitly filtering out notes, races, and goals. It distinguishes itself from workout-library templates and names sibling tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit use cases ('what's my next workout?', 'what training is planned') and gives clear routing: use icu_get_calendar_events for all calendar entries, icu_get_workouts_in_folder for library templates, and event-specific tools for IDs returned by this tool. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use it.

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