Exercise Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context (open-source database, 896 exercises, CC-BY-SA license) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search 896 exercises by name'). Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the search functionality. It mentions returned fields (name, category, ID) and source context. Could hint at search behavior (e.g., exact vs partial match), but not required for completeness.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'term', and the description adds value by providing multiple examples of valid search terms (bench press, squat, etc.), clarifying usage beyond the schema description.

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 explicitly states 'Search 896 exercises by name' with concrete examples (bench press, squat, deadlift, curl). It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'wger.fitness.exercise_details' by mentioning it returns ID for details lookup, making the purpose distinct.

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 usage for search by name and hints at using details tool for more info, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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