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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup. The description adds a useful hint that 'machines and runs' are prioritized, but the phrase is ambiguous and does not fully explain ordering or filtering behavior beyond substring matching.

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 very short and front-loads the core lookup behavior. But the wording is fragmented and the trailing 'machines and runs first' clause is cryptic, reducing clarity without much compensating value.

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 small read-only lookup with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is the unclear ordering note, but that does not block basic use.

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 both the query and optional kind parameters are already well documented. The description only reinforces the query's substring behavior and does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it returns movement slugs whose name contains the query, with examples 'row' and 'sled'. It also ties the output to suggest_workouts' include/exclude parameters, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling finder-style tools.

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 a clear intended use context: gathering slugs for suggest_workouts' include and exclude. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings like list_equipment or list_archetypes.

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