garmin_workouts

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two categories of data returned (saved workouts and scheduled dates), which is meaningful context. But it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor anything about date scoping, pagination, or auth needs.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what the resource is, then what it returns, then why it matters. The first line slightly overlaps with the second (library/schedule vs saved workouts/dates), a minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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 structure need not be explained, and there are no parameters to cover. The description adequately answers what the tool is and what it returns; only the safety/behavioral profile (read-only, no side effects) is missing, which no annotations supply.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is unfiltered, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it returns saved workouts (training plans, custom workouts) plus scheduled workout dates. That is far more informative than the title alone. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like garmin_training_load or garmin_today, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 offers an implied use case ('useful for understanding planned vs executed training') but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusions, and no named alternative for planned-workout questions versus executed-activity questions. The framing is helpful but leaves selection to inference.

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