Search exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (library exercise IDs, native parameters, demo video URL) and that it works offline, which are useful behavioral details beyond the 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Search'), specifies the target resource, lists what is returned, and notes the offline constraint. Every phrase adds value and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (IDs, native parameters, video URL) and ties it to the broader workflow (tp_create_strength_workout). The input schema handles parameter details, so the description covers what the schema cannot.

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%, with clear descriptions for query, limit, and muscle_group. The description reinforces that search is by name (query) and mentions the offline nature, but does not add substantive parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('built-in strength exercise library'), and clearly states the offline nature and the purpose of the returned IDs (for use in tp_create_strength_workout). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_get_library_items, which likely handle user-created libraries rather than the built-in strength library.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to find a strength exercise by name to include in a workout. It also notes the offline capability and mentions the downstream use case. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', which would earn a 5.

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