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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It declares the operation read-only, lists omitted fields (source payloads, route coordinates, latlng, raw stream arrays), and explains the CSV-in-MCP-result behavior plus the signed-link fallback. This is far beyond a generic 'get details' statement.

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?

Three tightly scoped sentences cover purpose, usage context, and response behavior without filler. The most critical routing signal—'after identifying its training_id with get_trainings'—is front-loaded in the very first sentence.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the workflow, supported question types, exclusions, and data-format fallback. A bit more clarity about when the signed-link fallback triggers and what the 'passport' shape looks like would make it fully complete.

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%, and the schema already explains that training_id is returned by get_trainings and that get_trainings should be loaded first. The description reinforces the same prerequisite but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case detail, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and a clear object ('compact read-only passport for one completed workout'), and enumerates the exact question types it supports: intervals, laps, splits, terrain, weather, efforts, segments, and data quality. It also names get_trainings as the upstream step, which distinguishes this detail-retrieval tool from the listing tool.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: identify the workout with get_trainings, then call this tool for detailed one-workout questions. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools beyond get_trainings, so it stops short of a full routing contract.

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