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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. 'No account needed' adds a genuinely useful precondition, and the body-map/cues/swaps enumeration hints at the payload, but nothing is said about lookup failure behavior for an unrecognized exercise name or about response size.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then the returned content, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, rich annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, the remaining burden on the description is only when-to-use and what-to-exclude, both of which are covered. Nothing needed to select or call this tool correctly is missing.

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% with a single required string that already documents both the full name and the Almost Fire key form. The description adds no lookup semantics of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('shows it on the body map with its equipment, its cues and swaps'), which tells an agent exactly what content comes back. It stops short of naming the closely related siblings list_alternatives and swap_exercise, so an agent must infer the boundary from the payload description rather than from an explicit contrast.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('when someone asks how to do an exercise, which muscles it works, or what to do instead') plus a clear exclusion ('Do not use to diagnose pain or to give rehab exercises'). It does not redirect to a named alternative tool for the swapped or alternative-exercise cases, which is the one gap.

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