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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — matching normalizes hyphens and spacing, so 'pull up' and 'pull-up' both match — which is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the one non-obvious matching rule, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information an agent cannot get from structured fields; no filler.

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?

With only two parameters, an output schema covering return values, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. Minor omissions (case sensitivity, behavior on empty or unmatched query) are not enough to cause a failed call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: 'query' is defined as part of an exercise name with two examples, and 'limit' as the number of matches with its default of 25. It stops short of stating case sensitivity or an upper bound on limit, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('Search Garmin's strength exercise catalogue by name') with the exact domain narrowed to strength exercises. No sibling tool in the list overlaps with this lookup role, so an agent can place it immediately without comparing schemas.

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 context of use is clear: resolve an exercise name into catalogue entries (presumably before create_strength_workout). It does not state exclusions or an explicit 'use this when' clause, but no real alternative exists among the siblings, so the risk of misrouting is low.

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