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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result is 'Rounded to the nearest 0.5', which an agent cannot learn from annotations. It stops short of describing unit handling or behavior at range edges.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the rounding caveat follows immediately after. Every clause earns 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully discloses that the returned load is rounded to 0.5. Combined with 100% schema coverage for inputs, an agent has what it needs; only the unit round-trip could have been made explicit.

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%, so every parameter (including unit and formula) is already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates reps, RPE and one-rep max but adds nothing beyond what the schema says about them.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('the load') and the inputs that determine it ('given number of reps', 'target RPE', 'known or estimated one-rep max'). It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling rpe_estimate_max, but it never names or contrasts with siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'from a known or estimated one-rep max' implies the prerequisite (you must already have a 1RM) without stating when to prefer this tool over rpe_estimate_max or one_rep_max. Usage is only inferable, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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