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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, caching, or existence requirements) beyond confirming it is a read operation. Since annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. 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?

The tool has a single parameter, a rich output schema, and clear annotations. The description fully explains the tool's purpose and input requirement. There is no need for additional detail about return values or behavior since the output schema and annotations cover them.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage: 'The numeric wger exercise ID.' The description's phrase 'by its numeric ID' only restates what the schema already explains, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is applied.

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's function: 'Get detailed information for a specific exercise by its numeric ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('specific exercise'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_exercises by focusing on individual items.

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 implies the appropriate use case (when you have a numeric ID and need details), which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_exercises or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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