find_exercise_1rm

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: search coverage is 'limited,' candidates 'do not prove personal records,' and 'no member selector is accepted.' These are useful scoping caveats rather than restated hints.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the search action and followed by the ambiguity rule and limits. Slightly jargon-heavy ('read for this account,' 'member selector') but nothing is wasted.

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 shape need not be explained. The description covers the resolution flow, the ambiguity fallback, and coverage limits — enough for an agent to call this correctly, though the gymId scoping semantics remain 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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'name' as the search key and 'exerciseId' as an ID selected from returned candidates, but says nothing about how gymId scopes the search (only the oblique 'no member selector' line). Partial coverage justifies a mid score.

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: 'Search bounded exercise candidates by name,' which an agent can distinguish from get_exercise_1rm and get_exercise_rm_progression (those read results, this resolves candidates). The tie to 1RM is only implied by the tool name, not the description, so the intent is slightly opaque.

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 description implies the workflow — resolve a name to a candidate, and if ambiguous, supply 'an explicit source exercise ID from these candidates' — which is genuine routing guidance. However, it never names a sibling tool or states when to skip this step, so the agent must infer the handoff to get_exercise_1rm.

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