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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds return behavior details: 'Returns exercise names plus full memory summaries (body_area, severity, status).' This goes beyond the annotations, revealing what the output contains and the memory fields included.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by concrete use cases and return content. No wasted words or redundant schema repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not needed. However, the description omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter, and it does not clarify what 'recent' means or whether results are scoped to the current user. These gaps make it only partially complete for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Since there is one parameter with no schema description, the description fails to compensate by explaining what 'limit' controls (e.g., number of results, pagination).

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 the specific verb and resource: 'List recent recommendations that were suppressed because of injury memories.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_recommendations and list_memories by specifying the suppression reason and injury-memory gating.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use to answer why didn't my bench press progress?' and 'to understand which memories are actively gating training.' It provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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