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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: data is aggregated on a 10 m grid, only min/avg/max/coverage are returned rather than every sample, and an indoor run may legitimately yield no profile.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior (grid, channels, aggregations) and the second adds a critical edge case, all without 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?

For a one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how it is structured, and the key exceptional case (indoor runs), so an agent can select and invoke it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, activity_id, and the schema already documents it as a run id from ourpr_list_runs. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description clearly identify the tool as returning a run's elevation and sensor profile aggregated on a 10 m grid. It specifies the exact channels (elevation, heart rate, power, cadence) and the aggregation dimensions (min, average, max, coverage), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ourpr_get_run or ourpr_run_laps.

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 when to use the tool: when an aggregated, gridded sensor/elevation profile is needed for a run. It also gives a useful exclusion—indoor runs normally have no profile—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when a sibling tool should be preferred.

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