search_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return format ('CATEGORY / NAME lines') that would otherwise be unknown, since no output schema exists. It stops short of describing matching semantics or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the output contract immediately following. Every clause earns its place.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece — the shape of the returned lines and how to reuse them. It leaves match semantics and no-result behavior unstated, but nothing critical is absent.

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 'query' (with examples) and 'category' (with the full enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or matching detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus a specific resource ('Garmin exercise names') and an explicit scope covering the exercise-type families (strength, HIIT, cardio, yoga, pilates, mobility). No sibling tool in the list performs exercise-catalog lookup, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 tells the agent what to do with the results ('use them as exercise: { category, name }'), which is genuinely useful downstream guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over alternatives, whether query is fuzzy/substring matching, or how category narrows the search — usage is only implied.

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