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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real scope constraints beyond that: 'General fitness guidance only; no medical, cosmetic-outcome, or weight-loss claims.' It stops short of saying what the returned routine looks like, but the guardrail content is genuinely additive.

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?

Two sentences, no padding, with the trigger condition front-loaded and the exclusions immediately after. Every clause carries routing or scope information.

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 two-param, no-output-schema recommender with read-only annotations, the agent has the trigger, the exclusions, and the content limits it needs to choose and invoke the tool. The only gap is any hint of what form the recommended routine takes.

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 coverage is 100% with two enumerated parameters, so the schema does the documentation work. The description adds nothing about experience/goal semantics — notably the schema's own 'Shopping goal' label for the goal enum is confusing, but that is a schema issue the description does not resolve.

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 conveys that the tool answers 'how to start or structure jaw or face exercise', which is a clear intent statement, and the sibling set (build_cart, get_product, search_products) is obviously distinct from a routine recommender. It never explicitly states the verb+output ('recommends a routine'), so it is clear but not maximally crisp.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('user asks how to start or structure jaw or face exercise') plus explicit when-NOT-to-use ('medical jaw pain, TMJ, orthodontic, or dental questions'). This is a textbook routing instruction with no inference required.

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