get_workouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it declares read-only access, warns about source provenance and missing-data caveats, and rules out clinical interpretation. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or output shape, but the behavioral caveats are substantive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The semicolon-separated caveats are dense but purposeful, though the phrase could be split for easier parsing.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context: read-only nature, provenance, missing data, and scope limitation. It does not need to explain return values in detail, and the remaining gap is minor date-format guidance already present in the schema.

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% for two required date parameters. The description only says 'for a date range,' adding minimal semantic detail beyond the parameter names themselves; it does not clarify format, inclusiveness, or whether both bounds are required.

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 read-only verb and resource ('workout observations') scoped to a date range, making it clearly distinct from siblings like get_sleep_summary or get_timeseries. It does not explicitly name any sibling for comparison, but the resource noun 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?

The date-range scope implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools such as get_timeseries or get_daily_summary. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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