search_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/closed-world/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two facts annotations cannot: the catalog is bundled (static, not external) and results must be reused verbatim downstream. It does not say how matching works or whether results are ranked.

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, no filler, and the operational constraint is front-loaded after the purpose. Nothing is wasted.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the exact-name contract is covered. But with two undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage, the search semantics an agent needs to call this correctly are 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions 'term' (is it substring, prefix, fuzzy?) or 'limit'. An agent must guess whether 'bench' matches 'bench press' or only exact tokens.

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 the bundled strength catalog'), which is unambiguous. Sibling tools are all list_*/preview_* on different domains, so the resource alone differentiates it, though the description never names them.

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 second sentence implies downstream usage ('use the exact returned name in an exercise step'), which is genuinely useful routing context. However, there is no statement of when to search versus when the catalog is unnecessary, and no alternative is named.

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