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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing ranking behavior (by the muscles a lift trains), locale-aware translated names, and the limit ceiling of 100, which are behavioral traits annotations cannot express.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the resource, then structures the two views as labelled segments, ending with the cross-tool pointer. Every clause carries information, though the single-sentence packing makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-line breakdown would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics – and it does, naming muscles, equipment, measures and instructions for detail and ranked, locale-aware names for search. What it omits (pagination or result-shape detail for search beyond the limit) is minor for a read-only catalog tool.

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 coverage is already 80%, but the description adds real semantics: query accepts natural language, muscle groups or movements, and locale defaults to the user's language with translated names returned. It also scopes exercise_id to the detail view and to its later use in save_plan/log_workout/live_workout, which the schema's terse 'detail: the exercise.' does not convey.

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 resource (the exercise catalog plus the user's own exercises) and enumerates the two distinct operations under view, making clear what search versus detail each return. The closing sentence ties the tool to its siblings (save_plan, log_workout, live_workout), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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 when to pick each view – search for querying by words, muscle group or movement, detail for one exercise's full attributes – and names the downstream tools that consume the result. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool is given, but the conditional routing between the two views is unambiguous.

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