get_exercise_1rm

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the account ID is derived internally, units require corroborating history text, and source names are untrusted. These caveats go well beyond the structured fields and warn the agent about data interpretation pitfalls.

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 core read action is front-loaded, but the middle sentences are dense and cryptic ('the chart field named lbs alone is not a unit', 'limited exercise-detail coverage') without context, which dilutes rather than sharpens the message.

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 explained, and the description still adds auth derivation, unit-handling, return-context, and trust caveats. Coverage is solid for a two-param read tool, though the cryptic unit and coverage phrasing leaves some ambiguity.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does semantically identify both params ('one known source exercise ID' for exerciseId, 'an accessible gym' for gymId), but adds no format, range, or ID-sourcing detail beyond that conceptual mapping.

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 ('Read') and resource ('latest dated 1RM for one known source exercise ID'), which is concrete enough to distinguish from find_exercise_1rm and get_exercise_rm_progression. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'one known source exercise ID' implies a precondition (you must already have an ID), and 'at an accessible gym' hints at scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling tools that would be chosen instead.

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