get_exercise_1rm

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the account ID is derived internally (no caller-supplied identity), the 'lbs' chart field alone is not a trustworthy unit, source names are untrusted data (an injection warning), and other RM/WOD series are returned only as counts. Some wording ('corroborating same-action history text') is opaque, keeping it short of 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?

Four dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and caveats trailing in roughly descending importance; no filler. The unit-provenance sentence is grammatically awkward and costs some clarity, but nothing is redundant.

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 described, yet the description usefully flags what comes back (other RM and WOD counts, limited exercise-detail coverage). For a one-parameter read tool it covers preconditions, identity derivation, data-trust, and scope limits; only error/inaccessible-ID behavior is unaddressed.

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% for the single exerciseId parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does clarify that the ID must be a 'known source exercise ID' subject to gym accessibility, which is meaningful beyond the bare integer, but it gives no format, range, or example, and never says what happens when the ID is unknown or inaccessible.

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: read the account holder's latest dated 1RM for one known source exercise ID at an accessible gym. It implicitly distinguishes itself from find_exercise_1rm by requiring a 'known' source exercise ID, but never names that sibling or get_exercise_rm_progression, so the reader must infer the routing.

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 precondition 'one known source exercise ID' implies the ID must already be resolved (presumably via find_exercise_1rm) and that gym accessibility is checked, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use case is stated. Limitations such as 'no complete catalog or lifetime history is claimed' hint at scope boundaries without explicit routing guidance.

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