get_exercise_rm_progression

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for going beyond that: it explains that source-marked new RM events are labeled separately, that optional WOD entries are kept distinct, and that the view is limited to the own account rather than complete history. That is meaningful output-shaping context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the labeling behavior, then the scope limitation. Dense but each sentence carries information; minor jargon ('source-marked') slightly slows parsing.

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 described, and the description supplies the scope limitation, labeling semantics, and WOD handling an agent needs to interpret results. Only gymId's role remains unexplained, which is a small residual gap.

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 addresses exerciseId ('known source exercise ID') and indirectly includeWod via the WOD-context sentence, but gymId is never explained in either place, leaving a real gap.

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 gives a specific verb (Read) and resource (separate 1/3/5/10RM series) keyed to a source exercise ID, which clearly separates it from get_published_workouts and the booking tools. It stops short of naming get_exercise_1rm/find_exercise_1rm as siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Known source exercise ID' implies the ID must be obtained elsewhere, and the closing sentence excludes it from being a full lifetime history, which is a scope caveat. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative tool (e.g. get_exercise_1rm) is named, leaving usage only implied.

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