Get activity best efforts

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 adds the genuinely useful constraint that the stream must exist on the activity and that exactly one of duration/distance is required, but says nothing about the shape or ordering of returned efforts. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and its examples front-loaded and the calling constraint second. Every clause earns its place.

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 computation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool computes and the constraints needed to invoke it. It could optionally sketch the returned entity (e.g. per-effort duration/distance/value) to complete the picture, but nothing essential to a correct call 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%, giving a baseline of 3, and the schema already documents each field richly (units, examples, the 'pace is NOT valid' caveat). The description goes beyond the schema by stating the mutually-exclusive constraint 'exactly one of duration or distance', which the schema's required list does not encode. That is real added semantic value.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('best efforts within an activity') and grounds it with two concrete examples (peak 5-min power, fastest 1km), so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings such as get_activity_power_curve or get_activity_intervals, which describe overlapping peak-effort concepts.

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 supplies a real precondition ('Requires a stream to measure and exactly one of duration or distance'), which tells the agent how to call it correctly. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_activity_power_curve or get_activity_intervals, so usage against alternatives is only implied.

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