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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-format context ('Returns display name, muscles, and equipment, best matches first, max 20 results'), but this is arguably also covered by the output schema which exists. It does not discuss pagination behavior or how 'best matches' ranking works.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then adds return info, then parameter descriptions. Reasonably efficient, though the parameter section duplicates the schema and the catalog-membership note could be tighter.

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 annotations (read-only, idempotent) and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call the tool correctly. The catalog-membership constraint is valuable context for a workout-building workflow. Minor gap around result ranking or pagination semantics, but overall complete for a search tool.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema including enum values. The description repeats the parameter purposes without adding syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the exercise catalog') plus the facets it searches on (name, muscle group, equipment). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_exercise_names and get_exercise_history, which serve different purposes.

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 clarifies implicit usage context with 'Every exercise in a workout must come from this catalog or the user's custom exercises,' which explains when this tool is relevant (constructing workouts). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when NOT to use it.

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