Search activities

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, open-world read. The description goes further by disclosing the non-obvious semantics of a returned field: energy_kcal is the catalog estimate for energy_for (e.g. '5 km w 00:30:00') for an average person and must be scaled. That is real behavioral context beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then the return shape, then the scaling requirement. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence is densely packed with field semantics.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still covers the one genuinely non-obvious piece: that energy_kcal is an average-person estimate tied to energy_for and must be scaled before add_activity. Nothing an agent needs to call and chain this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only repeats the 'bieganie' phrase example already in the schema. It adds no new syntax or interpretation for phrase or limit, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (activity/workout catalog) and immediately disambiguates from the food and recipe search siblings by naming the catalog and giving workout examples ('bieganie', 'rower'). An agent can tell what domain this searches without opening the schema.

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 frames the tool within the workflow: each hit carries activity_id to feed add_activity, and the returned energy_kcal must be scaled before add_activity can use it. It gives clear context but never states when *not* to use it or names the alternative catalog-search siblings explicitly.

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