get_activity_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns a comprehensive payload and lists several data categories, but it does not explicitly mention that it is read-only, any auth needs, error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the verb and target resource, and the second sentence lists concrete output categories. Every clause adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

The tool itself is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return value details are covered elsewhere. However, with many sibling activity tools, the lack of usage guidance and explicit distinction between this tool and get_activity_splits leaves room for incorrect selection.

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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, activity_id. The description adds the meaning that the ID identifies a specific activity, but it does not explain the ID format, where to obtain it, or any validation expectations.

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 operation ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific activity by its ID'), and it names useful output categories like splits, HR zones, pace, and elevation. It is distinct from simple list tools but does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling get_activity_splits.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_activity_splits or get_recent_activities. The only implicit condition is needing an activity ID, but no when-not-to-use or sibling comparison is provided.

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