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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine method context beyond that: RPE is treated as reps-in-reserve and the formula is applied to reps + RIR, which tells the agent how the output is derived.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the parenthetical aside makes it slightly harder to scan at a glance.

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 stateless read-only calculator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly and understand the derivation. Only the absence of sibling routing against one_rep_max keeps it from being 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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (including enums and bounds) are already documented. The description's RPE-as-RIR explanation restates what the rpe field description already says, adding no new syntax or format detail; baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb and resource ('Estimate a one-rep max') plus the inputs that drive it (weight, reps, RPE). It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling one_rep_max, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 implies the situation (you have a set with an RPE and want a 1RM estimate) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never names the sibling one_rep_max as the alternative when RPE is unavailable. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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