download_course_gpx

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description only restates the read nature ('GETs ... through client.download') and adds nothing about what is actually returned (a binary GPX file?), auth requirements, or any side effects. Minimal added context over the 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?

It is a single compact sentence with no waste, but it is not front-loaded around purpose or return behavior — it leads with an HTTP method and endpoint path rather than what the tool accomplishes for the caller. Concise but under-specified as a fragment.

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?

With no output schema and no explanation of the return value, the description leaves a key gap for a download tool: the agent cannot tell that it receives GPX file content rather than structured data. For a low-complexity one-param tool it covers the call mechanics but not the result semantics.

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% with a single required `courseId` (documented as 'Numeric id'), and the description merely echoes the parameter as the path placeholder. Baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter and the description adds no syntax or format detail.

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 names a specific resource path (`/course-service/course/gpx/{courseId}`) and an operation, but it does so as a raw HTTP implementation detail ('GETs ... through client.download') rather than stating in plain language that it retrieves a course's GPX file. An agent can infer the effect from the endpoint and tool name, but it is not distinguished from siblings like `download_activity`, `download_workout`, or `import_course_gpx`.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. Nothing tells the agent how this differs from `get_course`, `import_course_gpx`, or the other `download_*` tools, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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