List workouts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful default sort order, but says nothing about pagination (next_token exists) or how limit/start/days interact, which are the behaviors an agent most needs to reason about.

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, tightly packed sentence with the resource and ordering front-loaded and no wasted words. It is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, but that costs nothing in clarity.

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, the field enumeration (sport, duration, strain, heart rate, calories, distance, altitude, HR-zone time) usefully describes the return shape. Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs, the only real gap is pagination and filter-interaction behavior.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, including the subtle interaction where sport filtering is applied post-fetch. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline, so a 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 names the resource (workouts), enumerates the fields returned, and states the ordering (most recent first), so an agent knows exactly what a call produces. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this list tool from the singular sibling get_workout, leaving that to the tool name.

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 tool versus get_workout for a single record, nor any statement of exclusions or prerequisites. The fields listed describe output, not usage context, so the agent gets no routing help.

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