get_segment_effort_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only operation', which indicates the tool does not modify data. It also discloses that ownership and subscription are required. This goes beyond many descriptions, though it does not mention error behaviors when those conditions are not met. Still, it effectively conveys the safety profile and prerequisites.

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 reasonably concise and structured. It begins with a clear purpose, then gives the endpoint (which is useful since the endpoint is not in the schema), followed by the description and read-only note. It contains the necessary information without excessive verbosity. Minor redundancy exists between the first line and the 'Description:' section, but overall it is well-organized.

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 GET tool with a single parameter, the description covers the core purpose, ownership constraint, subscription requirement, and read-only nature. It lacks explicit error handling details, but those are not commonly expected for a read-only operation. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it, though it does not describe alternatives.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the id parameter documented as 'The identifier of the segment effort.' The tool description adds no additional meaning about the id parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the baseline 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 description clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'segment effort'. It specifies that the effort must be owned by the authenticated athlete, which adds context. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_efforts_by_segment_id (which returns multiple efforts for a segment), the tool name itself is specific enough to avoid confusion. A clearer mention of alternatives would make it a 5.

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 states that the effort must be owned by the authenticated athlete and that a subscription is required, which provides important context for when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_efforts_by_segment_id. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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