search_exercises

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses a 24h cache with a refresh override and states the return fields (id, title, tracking scheme, video link). It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on no matches, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences: purpose and matching rule first, return shape and cache behavior second. No filler, nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still summarizes them usefully. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit and with_video_only parameters, which an agent would need in order to call the tool precisely.

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 compensate. It does explain query semantics (all words must match) and the purpose of refresh, but limit and with_video_only are documented in neither the schema nor the description, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 ("Find") and resource ("exercises in the TrainHeroic library") plus the matching rule ("all words must match"), which clearly separates it from get_exercise (single lookup) and get_recent_exercises (recent list). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from naming rather than stated.

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 use case (name-based lookup in the library) and mentions refresh=True for reloading the cache, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or pointers to alternatives like search_circuits, get_recent_exercises, or get_exercise. An agent can infer intent but must guess at boundaries.

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