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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, closed-world read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the kind of catalog information returned and clarifying that suggestions are not personalized prescriptions.

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 front-loaded with the lookup action and examples, then quickly lists expected output and scope caveats. Every sentence adds useful information without wasting space.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It defines the input domain, describes the catalog-style output, and sets expectations that results are suggestions rather than personalized prescriptions.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does this well by defining the sole input as one canonical movement name or alias and giving concrete examples, though it does not clarify matching behavior such as case sensitivity or partial matching.

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-resource pair: looking up one canonical movement name or alias, with examples like HSPU and thruster. The scope is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_workout or search_workouts.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Look up one canonical movement name or alias' and the caveat that results are catalog suggestions, not personalized prescriptions. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of search_workouts or get_workout.

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