search_movement

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden and does state the return content (matching movements with numeric IDs). It does not cover matching behavior (exact vs partial), result limits, or what happens on no match, which are minor for a read-only lookup.

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 tight sentences with the purpose and examples front-loaded and the downstream dependency stated last. No 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?

For a single-parameter search with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs (purpose, example inputs, returned IDs). Only edge-case behavior such as no-match returns or result caps is 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete example values ('Deadlift', 'Squat Clean') that clarify search granularity beyond the schema's generic 'Movement name or partial name'.

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 (Search) and resource (BTWB's movement library) plus the scoping dimension (by name), with concrete example terms. The mention that results feed log_workout and get_movement_history makes its role distinct from those write/history siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool is needed: it is the prerequisite lookup for log_workout and get_movement_history because they require numeric IDs. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, but no competing search tool exists among the siblings.

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