Strava Activity Series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: a 500-point cap to avoid blowing the context window, exact stats on full-resolution samples plus downsampled series, and the explicit exclusion of GPS. No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by the context-window safeguard, usage guidance, and exclusions/contract. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or wordiness.

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?

With a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description still adds necessary context: purpose, caps, alternatives, GPS exclusion, and shared contract. This gives an agent all it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly without relying on hidden details.

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 high (83%) with descriptions on 5 of 6 parameters; response_format's enum is self-explanatory. The description adds modest semantic context by connecting metric to 'one activity metric' and max_points to the '500 points' cap, but most parameter meaning already lives in the schema. Still, it enriches understanding beyond bare schema.

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 opens with 'Bounded time-series for one activity metric', identifying the exact resource and core operation. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'Prefer strava_get_activity / zones first; reach for this when you need the shape of the effort' and clarifies 'GPS is never returned here', which distinguishes it from activity streams.

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?

Provides clear usage precedence: 'Prefer strava_get_activity / zones first' and the decision trigger 'when you need the shape of the effort.' It also states 'GPS is never returned here', steering users away when location data is needed. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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