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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about alias resolution and the risk of splitting a lift's history across near-duplicates, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not describe output shape, but that is a minor gap for a simple catalog tool.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first defines the catalog contents, and the second provides a concrete usage rule with rationale, making every sentence earn 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 read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns conceptually, when to use it, and why, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of aliases supports the search parameter's meaning but does not add operational detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a movement catalog containing canonical names, muscle groups, and aliases. It grounds the tool's purpose as a lookup step before logging sets, distinguishing it from logging tools even without naming a specific sibling.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool ('Check here before logging sets') and why canonical names matter for data integrity. It does not name alternative tools or edge cases where the tool should not be used, but the usage context is clear.

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