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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses return fields, 'best matches first' ordering, a 20-result cap, and the catalog/custom-exercise sourcing constraint. These details add meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose and key constraints in the first sentence followed by a clean Args block. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 search tool with fully documented optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral details: result cap, ordering, return fields, and catalog constraints. The custom-exercise nuance is acknowledged, making the description effectively complete.

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 schema documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete query examples like 'bench press', clarifies that query is free-text, and signals that filters can be combined via 'and/or'.

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 opens with a clear verb–resource pair ('Search the exercise catalog') and specifies the three filter dimensions: name, muscle group, and equipment. It also states return fields and sorting behavior, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like validate_exercise_names.

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 provides practical context: this tool finds catalog exercises for workout use, and it notes the important rule that workout exercises must come from this catalog or custom exercises. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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