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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it searches both the shared catalog and the user's custom exercises, and it supports filtering by multiple dimensions. It does not mention edge behavior such as result limits, but the output schema likely covers return shape.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the filter dimensions without repetition or filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, fully-optional-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description plus annotations is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No critical information about purpose or scope 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%, so all four parameters (search, category, equipment, muscle_group) are already documented in the schema. The description simply restates the filter dimensions without adding syntax details or value constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') plus a clear resource ('the exercise library'), and enumerates the four search dimensions: name, equipment, muscle group, and category. It also distinguishes the tool's scope by noting it covers the shared ~800-exercise catalog plus the user's own custom exercises, which separates it from the workout-management sibling 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?

The intended use case is clear: look up exercises from the library by one or more supported filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are all workout CRUD/history operations, so an agent can reasonably infer this is the right tool for exercise lookups.

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