icu_get_activities_around

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no note on what happens if the reference activity is missing, ordering guarantees, or result shape). Minimum-viable but consistent with 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its distinctive symmetric-window semantics, followed by compact usage examples. No filler.

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 tool with a full output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies what is needed to select and call it. It could be slightly stronger with an edge-case note on an unknown activity_id, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's '(N each side)' mildly reinforces the semantics of count, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('activities') with a precise anchor: chronologically before and after a reference activity, N each side. This scope is inherently distinguishable from date-range or recent-activity siblings, though no sibling is named to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Gives three concrete when-to-use triggers ('what did I do around this race?', training-context queries, progression comparisons), which is clear usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative such as a date-range or search tool.

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