Strava Gear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic get operation, such as how privacy_mode affects returned data or that explicit_user_intent is required for raw mode; these details exist only in the schema.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

While the description is minimal, the rich annotations and detailed input schema (with privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent) fill in crucial context. An output schema is present, so return values need no explanation. The description is adequate for a simple read-only getter, but it does not explicitly mention privacy modes or escalation, leaving some contextual gaps that the schema fortunately covers.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (id, privacy_mode, explicit_user_intent), while response_format only has an enum/default. The description itself contributes no parameter meaning, and this modest schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3 rather than higher.

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 'Get gear/equipment details by id' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a retrieval operation for a gear entity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like strava_get_activity or strava_get_route by the resource type (gear).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Get' and the presence of an 'id' parameter, but there is no explicit contextual instruction.

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