search_exercises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the catalog size (~383 exercises) and explicitly listing the return fields (names, muscles, equipment, default sets/reps), which is especially useful since there is no output schema. It does not contradict the openWorldHint=false, as the fixed catalog size aligns with a bounded world.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the filter dimensions and the return content. Every sentence contributes essential information, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only catalog search: it defines the resource, filters, and return fields, while the schema fully documents the parameters. The only minor gap is that pagination/limiting behavior is not explicitly described in prose, but the 'limit' parameter with default/maximum covers that in the schema. No output schema exists, so the explicit return-field listing appropriately compensates.

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% – every parameter has a descriptive name and explanation with examples. The description only rephrases the filter options ('Filter by name, muscle group, body part, and/or equipment') without adding new semantics or clarifying interactions (e.g., AND logic, partial match behavior). This matches the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('the COROS exercise catalog'), and a scoping detail (~383 strength exercises). It also lists the filter dimensions and return fields, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_workouts or get_workout_details, which operate on workouts, not exercises.

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 clearly establishes the context: use this tool to search/filter the exercise catalog, which is the only tool among siblings that does this. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer appropriate timing. No exclusions are necessary given the dominant sibling focus on workout management rather than exercise lookup.

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