Get WHOOP workout by ID

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is stated about authentication requirements, whether the call can fail for unknown/expired IDs, or rate limits. It adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the implied read semantics of the verb.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing detail ('by its UUID') is front-loaded. It is not truncated in a way that loses meaning, though it is slightly terse for a tool definition.

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 tool is simple: one required UUID param and an output schema that covers return values, so the description need not explain the response. It is minimally complete, but leaves the ID-sourcing workflow and failure behavior unaddressed.

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%, but the param name 'workout_id' plus format: uuid and a strict UUID pattern make the schema largely self-documenting. The description's 'by its UUID' only marginally reinforces this and adds no format, source, or validity guidance beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 identifies the specific resource (a single workout record) and the keying mechanism (its UUID), which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_workouts list tool. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so it reads more like a label than an action description, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The 'by its UUID' framing implies you need an ID already in hand (e.g. from get_workouts), but that workflow and any exclusions are left entirely to inference from sibling names.

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