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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — nothing about result size, ordering, or whether the equipment list is fixed reference data or team-configurable. A read-only lookup with annotations earns a low bar, but this barely clears it.

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 tight sentences with no padding and the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is vague rather than wasteful, so it doesn't cost much.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the definition leaves two undocumented optional parameters unexplained and never says what the equipment list represents or how it differs from sibling list tools. For a lookup tool with zero schema coverage, it should do more.

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% for two parameters (locale, category_id), so the description is the only place that could explain them — and it doesn't mention either. "Filtering exercises" gestures at category scoping but never states what locale or category_id actually control or how they affect the returned equipment.

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 says it "Returns equipment for exercises," which names the resource but doesn't clarify the shape (a flat reference list of equipment types?) or scope (team vs. global). With siblings like list_muscle_groups and list_workout_categories doing the same job for other taxonomies, a one-clause nod to those distinctions would help.

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?

"Use when updating exercise metadata or filtering exercises" gives an implied context, but it never names the alternative tools (e.g. list_team_exercises, update_exercise_metadata) or states when NOT to call it. The agent must infer whether this list is global or team-scoped.

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