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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered structurally. The description adds the Epley formula choice and the return shape, which is modest extra context but nothing about behavior beyond what annotations and output schema 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 core purpose and formula are front-loaded in one efficient sentence. The remaining sentences are short, though the 'See list_bundles' pointer is tangential cross-promotion rather than information needed to invoke this tool.

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-parameter, read-only, idempotent calculator with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Restating the return object is redundant given the output schema, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and both parameters (weight, reps) are documented in the schema with bounds. The description only restates the input concept as 'from a known lift' and echoes the returned field names, adding no new meaning about units, ranges, or interpretation beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Generate a full 1RM-to-12RM repetition table from a known lift') and names the underlying method (Epley formula), which is clear and concrete. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling calculate_one_rep_max, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (notably calculate_one_rep_max), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The trailing 'See list_bundles for related sport calculators' is a cross-reference to a browsing tool, not usage guidance for this tool.

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