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

The annotations already specify readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it searches a 'library (with demo videos)' and returns an ID for use in another tool, which is helpful context, but it does not disclose anything about result limits, ranking, or failure modes. That makes a 3 appropriate: it adds some operational context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 mainly a single sentence, with the core purpose front-loaded. The examples and integration detail are somewhat parenthetical but still relevant. It could be slightly tighter, but no part is wasted.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and return value linkage. It lacks any boundaries on result count or error handling, but those are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 the 'search' parameter is already fully documented as 'Exercise name or muscle.' The description only provides surface examples, which add little beyond what the schema already says. The baseline of 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Searches the Trainer Connect exercise library') and adds useful scope ('with demo videos'), which is more specific than the sibling tools. An agent can confidently identify this as a read-only search operation distinct from all others.

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 explains the context by detailing exactly what it returns and how to use it ('Returns the exercise id to pass as edb_exercise_id in create_workout'), implicitly telling the agent to use it before creating a workout. It also gives language examples. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or contrast it with alternative tools.

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