find_exercise_1rm

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context on top: search coverage is limited and candidates do not prove personal records. It also discloses the account scoping constraint (no member selector). It stops short of describing result ordering or how many candidates are returned.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the search action and the resolution rule. The phrasing is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ('is read for this account'), but no sentence is filler.

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 an output schema present, return-value details are rightly omitted, and the description covers the two things an agent actually needs: the resolution workflow and the caveat that a match does not imply a personal record. Only the candidate-list shape and pagination limits are left implicit.

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 carry the load, and it does: 'name' is the search key, and 'exerciseId' is defined as an explicit source exercise ID that must come from the candidate set. It does not mention the length bound on name or that exerciseId must be a positive integer, but the meaning of both parameters is clear.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Search bounded exercise candidates by name' — plus the resolution rule (exact/sole candidate is read, ambiguity needs an explicit ID). It is clearly distinct in behavior from get_exercise_1rm, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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 concrete selection conditions: an exact or sole plausible candidate is resolved automatically, while ambiguity forces the caller to pass an exerciseId drawn from the returned candidates. It also excludes a whole class of input ('No member selector is accepted'), but does not explicitly say to call get_exercise_1rm afterwards or name any alternative tool.

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