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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that this lists only the user's own trained exercises (not the global pool) and that filters narrow that catalog. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose and scope, then list the filters, then give the routing guidance to the sibling tool. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only filterable list tool: it states the resource, the returned metadata categories, all optional filters, and the decision boundary versus search_exercise_pool. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.

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 names all four parameters and explains the query parameter specifically as a substring of name or id. It does not elaborate on accepted values for muscle, equipment, or movement_pattern, but it clearly marks them as optional filters.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('THIS USER's own exercise catalog') and explicitly distinguishes it from search_exercise_pool. It also enumerates what is returned (logged metadata such as instructions, video_url, image_url, pool_slug), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool to reuse an id the user already has, and use search_exercise_pool to choose a NEW exercise. This directly addresses when to choose this tool over the most relevant sibling.

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