strava_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses public data sourced from Strava's server-rendered route pages, implying a read-only operation with no authentication required. While it does not mention rate limits or exact pagination behavior, the public-data note gives essential context for a read-only listing tool.

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 concise sentences plus a short enumeration of sport values. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (4 flat parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the main retrieval dimensions: sport, country, region, and pagination via 'page'. The return description ('a page of recommendations') is somewhat high-level but sufficient for a listing tool, though it could mention output structure or edge cases to be truly comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%: every parameter (page, sport, region, country) already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level information beyond repeating the sport values and region format already present in the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's function: 'route-index listing' that returns a page of public route recommendations for a sport, country, and region. It uses specific verbs ('Returns', 'listing') and identifies the resource (Strava's public route recommendations), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'strava_route_detail' which would handle individual routes.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need a paginated list of Strava public routes filtered by sport, country, and region. It also enumerates valid sport values. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use strava_route_detail instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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