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 behavior the annotations don't: results are limited to published content on Explore, equipment filters act as a hard constraint ('results stay within it'), and limit defaults to 5 with a max of 20.

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?

It is front-loaded with the user-facing question, then behavior, then fallback, then a compact input roll-call and a concrete example. The 'Inputs:' list partly restates the schema, but it is short and the example earns its 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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers the searchable dimensions, the source modes, the result cap, and the fallback path. It doesn't sketch the shape or ordering of returned results, and the focus/query relationship is left ambiguous, which are the remaining gaps.

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 57%, and the description fills some gaps — the limit default and cap, the source enum meaning, and an example showing how query/max_minutes/equipment combine. But focus versus query overlap is never disambiguated and discipline, max_minutes, and equipment formats get only partial treatment, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource — searches published workouts on Explore — and scopes them by body area, name, exercise and gear. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling build_workout, which it names as the creation alternative rather than the search path.

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 gives an explicit fallback rule: if nothing fits, say so and offer build_workout to make one. That is real routing guidance. It doesn't explain when to prefer get_workout (for a single known workout) or how it differs from that sibling, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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