get_exercise_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that dates must be YYYY-MM-DD, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether the range filter is inclusive.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the format constraint; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that a slightly longer description could have closed.

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 values need not be described. For a read-only history lookup with three parameters and no schema documentation, the description is minimally adequate but omits the meaning of the date range and any expectation about result size or ordering.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does carry part of the burden by specifying the required date format for start_date/end_date, which the bare 'string' schema does not convey. However, it never explains what the dates actually filter (performed sets within range) or whether they are inclusive, and exercise_template_id is only implied by context.

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 states a specific verb and resource (get performed-set history) scoped to one exercise template, which clearly separates it from siblings like list_workouts or search_exercise_templates. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_workouts, get_workout, or search_exercise_templates, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only weakly implied by 'for one exercise template'.

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