mfp_search_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the exact output tuple and the legacy status. It does not contradict any annotation, so it earns credit for the added behavioral detail.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: it states the action, resource, return shape, purpose, and legacy status in two short sentences. Every word earns its place, and nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple read-only search tool, the description plus annotations and schema are mostly sufficient. It states the return value, and the schema covers input parameters; the main missing piece is a clear alternative or migration path given the '[legacy]' flag, but that is not critical for basic invocation.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning: it never mentions query, exercise_type, or response_format, and it does not explain how to construct a valid search. With the reported schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The nested schema partially rescues the situation, but the description itself carries none of this burden.

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('MFP's exercise database'), and explicitly states the returned fields ('exercise_id, name') and their purpose ('for logging'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_get_exercises or mfp_search_food without needing to open the schema.

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 'for logging' implies this is a lookup step before logging an exercise, and the '[legacy]' tag signals deprecation. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it name a replacement, which is especially important given the large sibling set and the legacy marker.

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