icu_search_activities_full

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that — 'Heavy payload' warns about cost/size, which the annotations do not capture. It stops short of noting pagination or result-size implications given the limit parameter.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with what it returns and the payload caveat, then the routing rule. Every sentence earns its place; the example query is the one piece of elaboration that adds real value.

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-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the two things an agent actually needs to decide and invoke: what makes this tool heavier than its sibling, and when that trade-off is warranted.

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 query, limit, and athlete_id are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by name or tag' corroborates the query parameter but adds no syntax, matching rules, or format detail beyond it. 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 and resource ('Search activities by name or tag') and immediately declares the distinguishing behavior: full Activity objects with power, HR, training load, IF, NP, weather. This contrasts cleanly with the sibling icu_search_activities.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('the lighter search_activities') and the condition that selects this one: when the lighter search won't tell you what you need. Provides a concrete example query (threshold rides with NP above 250W), leaving nothing to inference.

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