oura_workouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it states the tool returns specific data types (heart rate, calories, duration, intensity), that it includes auto-detected and manually logged entries, and that the date parameter defaults to today. This enriches the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the parameter explanation following. There is no extraneous information, and every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, this description is complete. It specifies the date format and default, and the output schema presumably covers the return values. There is nothing an agent needs to know to call this tool correctly that is missing.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. The single parameter 'date' is explained with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (defaults to today). This fully compensates for the missing schema description and leaves no ambiguity about how to use the parameter.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workouts'), and further specifies that it covers both auto-detected and manually logged workouts, along with the data fields returned (heart rate, calories, duration, intensity). This is distinct from the sibling tools like oura_sleep or oura_activity, so an agent can immediately recognize its purpose.

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 description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites. However, the name and content make it obvious that this is the tool for workout data, so the usage is implied rather than spelled out. There is no misleading guidance.

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