Get trending exercises

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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful traits: a 30-day aggregation window, an anonymization threshold of at least 3 accounts, filters reported as shares, and single-request usage. It does not detail response shape or rate limits, but it adds substantial behavioral context 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 front-loaded with purpose and scope, then adds anonymization, use case, and cost in four compact sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 no output schema, the description carries more burden for explaining returns and does describe exercises/filters, anonymization, and shares. However, it does not specify the exact response structure or how limit and plan caps affect results, leaving a minor gap for an agent calling the tool.

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 100%, so lang and limit are already fully documented by the schema. The description mentions filter categories and shares, but adds no syntax or meaning for the actual parameters beyond what the schema provides, so 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 names a specific resource and scope: exercises and filters requested most across WorkoutX apps in the last 30 days. It clearly separates this trending/aggregated view from generic exercise search, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of 5.

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?

It gives a concrete use case — deciding what to feature in an app — and notes the one-request cost. It lacks explicit exclusions or routing guidance versus search_exercises or list_exercise_filters, but the context is clear.

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