strava_gear_usage

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses that results are aggregated by gear id and include mileage, hours, and elevation. This gives the agent a concrete sense of the output shape without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: it names the action, the grouped metric set, the grouping key, and the intended use case.

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 read-only aggregation tool with rich parameter documentation in the schema, the description communicates the core output concept well. It lacks explicit details about return format boundaries or when to choose alternatives, but the schema and purpose statement largely cover what an agent needs to 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, though it does clarify that gearIds relates to the grouping key and that the metrics are mileage, hours, and elevation. This is sufficient but not exceptional.

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 ('Group') with a clear resource and scope: activity mileage, hours, and elevation grouped by gear id. It clearly distinguishes this aggregation tool from siblings like strava_gear_detail, which would focus on a single gear's details rather than usage summaries.

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 implied usage context ('service-interval audits') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as strava_activity_search or strava_gear_detail. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or sibling comparisons, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.

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