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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return structure (exercise name, category, muscle group, URL). However, it does not mention pagination behavior (page and hits_per_page parameters) or the optional account parameter, which are behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, starts with the action and resource, and lists the output fields. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the absence of an output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover more context. It mentions returned fields but omits details about pagination parameters and the account parameter. The tool is simple but incomplete for agent invocation without additional inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'query' parameter supports Portuguese or English names, but it does not describe the 'page', 'account', or 'hits_per_page' parameters. This leaves most parameters without semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the tool 'search[es] the exercise library by name' and lists the returned fields (name, category, muscle group, video/image URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mfit_get_exercise_favorites and mfit_get_workout_library which serve different retrieval 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool—when you need to search exercises by name in Portuguese or English. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide alternative suggestions, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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