Get Strava OAuth URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it's the first step when no token exists, but doesn't elaborate on return format or side effects (such as opening a browser). Given the simple nature and existing annotations, the description adds minimal but consistent context.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence delivers the core purpose immediately, and the second adds a concise usage condition.

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 simple URL-generation tool, good annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential use case. It clearly indicates when to use it first, though it doesn't explicitly mention the follow-up exchange step. Still, context is adequate.

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 descriptions cover 2 of 3 parameters, and response_format is self-explanatory via its enum and default. The description itself doesn't add any parameter-specific details, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' and names the exact resource ('Strava OAuth authorization URL'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like strava_exchange_code. It also positions it as the first step in the OAuth flow.

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 states 'Use this first when no local token exists,' providing a clear condition for when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it implies that other tools are used after token acquisition, which is sufficient context.

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