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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that results are high-level summaries, that limit caps the result count, and that total_count signals truncation. These behaviors add meaningful context not available in the annotations.

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 four concise, purposeful sentences: action and output, limit/truncation behavior, filtering, and the alternative endpoint. No filler or redundant content; each 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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations, the description covers all essential behavior: summary fields, truncation via total_count, optional folder filter, and the path to full detail. There are no required parameters or hidden prerequisites to disclose.

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% and both parameters are already documented with their exact semantics (default/max for limit, optional filter for folder_name). The description repeats this information without adding new parameter-level meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List workout templates as a high level summary') and enumerates exact output fields (name, folder, exercise count, total_count). It also differentiates from get_workout_detail by explicitly noting it does not show full structure.

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 explicitly names the alternative endpoint (get_workout_detail) and the condition for using it ('to see a template's full structure'). It also identifies the folder_name parameter as an optional filter, giving the agent a clear decision rule.

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