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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns links plus short summaries (not full prescriptions) and is scoped to the public catalog only. It stops short of describing result ordering or pagination behavior, which is minor given limit is capped.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then the routing hint, then the exclusion. No filler, each sentence carries distinct information.

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, the return shape needn't be spelled out, and the description still gives a useful preview ('workout links and short summaries'). The only real gap for a 3-parameter search tool is the unaddressed 'limit' semantics and result ordering.

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 has to compensate and only partly does: it clarifies that 'query' matches workout name or movement and that 'category' is an optional filter. The 'limit' parameter (default 5, max 10) is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters entirely undocumented outside 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the public PRzilla workout catalog'), the match fields (name or movement), and the scope boundary (not athlete history). An agent can distinguish this from get_workout and search_movements without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes downstream needs to get_workout for 'prescriptions and benchmark targets' and excludes athlete history searches. It does not name search_movements as the alternative for movement-only lookups, so the when-not coverage against all siblings is incomplete.

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