get_exercise_rm_progression

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are split into separate per-RM series, source-marked new RM events are labeled distinctly, optional WOD entries stay as separate context rather than merging, and the view is scoped to the caller's own account with incomplete history.

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?

Three compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by output-shape caveats and a limitation disclaimer. No filler, though the phrase 'remain distinct context' is slightly abstract for an agent to act on.

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 tool is simple (2 params, one required, no nesting) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers scope, series segmentation, labeling of new RM events, WOD separation, and the own-account/lifetime limitation — everything an agent needs to invoke it sensibly, with only the sibling-routing guidance missing.

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 parameter burden. It does clarify that exerciseId is a 'source exercise ID' and that optional WOD entries remain distinct context, which maps to includeWod, but it gives no format, defaults, or validation semantics (e.g. that exerciseId is a positive integer, or what omitting includeWod does). Partial compensation only.

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 separate dated 1/3/5/10RM series' scoped to 'a known source exercise ID'. That is far more precise than a bare name restatement, and the emphasis on a multi-point dated series implies differentiation from the single-value siblings get_exercise_1rm and find_exercise_1rm, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool requires a 'known source exercise ID', and the closing sentence sets expectations that this is a 'limited own-account view, not complete lifetime history'. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_exercise_1rm or find_exercise_1rm, which are the most likely alternatives.

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