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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the formula names (Epley, Brzycki, Lombardi) and the return keys, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about validation limits (e.g. reps capped at 30) or fallback behavior for out-of-range inputs.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. The formula list and return-shape note are both compact and earned.

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 read-only calculation with 100% schema coverage and an output schema in place, the definition is essentially complete; the explicit return-key list is redundant given the output schema but harmless. Only minor gap is valid-range/error handling context.

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% (both weight_lifted and reps fully documented with bounds), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter syntax or unit guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 (estimate) and resource (1 repetition maximum) and specifies the input type (submaximal lift) and the exact formulas used. It also names the sibling calculate_1rm_table implicitly by routing related calculators via list_bundles, so an agent can tell it apart from other 1RM tools.

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?

It gives implied context (submaximal lift input) and points to list_bundles for related calculators, but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus calculate_1rm_table, nor any note on valid rep ranges or formula applicability limits.

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