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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned values: one per line, key-to-name format, machine labels on ergometers, and acceptance of common aliases.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, with line breaks that separate the value format from alias support. The opening phrase is slightly indirect, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity, zero parameters, full annotations, and existing output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool provides. It additionally explains alias acceptance and machine labeling, which are helpful details beyond the structured fields.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description discusses equipment keys and aliases, but these are returned values rather than invocation parameters, so there is no additional parameter semantics to explain.

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 identifies the resource as equipment and clarifies that it is the set of equipment values accepted by suggest_workouts, including keys, names, and common aliases. It does not explicitly start with a verb like 'lists,' but combined with the name and title, the purpose is clear and distinguishable from siblings.

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 implies usage by tying the output to suggest_workouts' equipment parameter, suggesting it is useful when valid equipment values are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to call this tool, when not to, or name alternative sibling tools.

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