Search the exercise catalog

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying semantics like 'equipment' filtering (only fully covered exercises) and the meaning of 'in_user_catalog'. It also explains that slugs are canonical and should be reused, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't contradict the annotation, and while it could mention pagination or rate limits, the current disclosure is strong for a read-only search.

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 a single paragraph but is reasonably concise, with key information front-loaded ('Search the curated global exercise pool'). It packs many details without redundancy. However, it is somewhat dense and might be slightly overlong given the complexity, but each sentence contributes value (filter criteria, slug reuse, exclusion).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 optional parameters, output schema exists) and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: filter semantics, output fields (slug, localized name, muscles, defaults), and usage context. The output schema presumably details return values, so the description doesn't need to. It also includes the important instruction about reusing slugs, which is critical for downstream tools.

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?

The input schema has zero descriptions, so the description must clarify parameters. It covers each parameter with concrete examples ('muscle' e.g. 'lats', 'side_delts'), clarifies that equipment is a list of what the user has with the 'fully covered' semantic, and explains the 'query' parameter (name in any supported language). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though 'limit', 'locale', and 'movement_pattern' are not individually detailed, but the overall guidance compensates.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching the curated global exercise pool for building programs or workouts. It specifies the resource (exercise pool), the action (search), and the context (the place to pick exercises from). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_exercises by emphasizing the curated global pool and the reuse of canonical slugs.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('THE place to pick exercises from when building a program or a workout') and even provides an exclusion criterion ('Invent your own exercise only when nothing here fits'). This gives clear routing guidance, especially given the presence of sibling tools like list_exercises and upsert_exercise.

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