get_workout_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses that no score is computed, that matching is on date only, and the upstream reason (Garmin's schedule query returns no sport). It omits permissions, pagination, and ordering behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and the important caveat before the args list. The Args section partially duplicates the schema, but it adds format detail, so little is wasted.

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 re-explained, and the description covers the key interpretive caveat an agent needs to use the result correctly. Given no annotations, it is nearly complete, missing only operational details like limits.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it documents both parameters with the required YYYY-MM-DD format. This adds real meaning the bare schema lacks, though it gives no range or boundary semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List scheduled workouts alongside activities recorded the same day') and immediately corrects the misleading name by clarifying it returns a pairing, not a compliance score. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_scheduled_workouts or get_activities_by_date without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the crucial usage constraint (matching is date-only and the compliance determination is left to the caller), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never names an alternative sibling or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so routing guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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