compare_workout_periods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any caveats about data aggregation. The verb 'compare' implies a read-only action, but no behavioral traits are explicitly disclosed.

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 a single, focused sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, given the complexity of four parameters and no annotations, a slightly more structured form (e.g., adding a sentence about return values) would be valuable.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks information about the return value, date format, and what 'totals' means (e.g., count, duration, calories). It also provides no guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools.

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%. The description mentions 'two date ranges', which maps to the four date parameters, but it does not explain the format, semantics of start vs end, or how 'totals' relate to the parameters. The parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'compare' with the resource 'workout totals' and scopes it to two date ranges. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like query_workouts or summarize_workouts, though it could be more explicit about what metrics are calculated.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this when you need to compare workout totals across two periods. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like summarize_workouts or query_workouts, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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