Strava Weekly Training Review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. It adds 'non-medical' as a scope disclaimer but provides no additional behavioral context such as data source, caching, or rate limits. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description meets the baseline without adding significant value beyond them.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action and key deliverables. No unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 summary tool with no required parameters, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context. Missing prerequisites (e.g., authentication) are implied by the surrounding sibling tools. The description could mention that it aggregates historical data, but overall it is complete given the structured fields.

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 75%, with days, timezone, and compare_days well described. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema handles most of the semantics. response_format lacks a description but has an enum, so the absence of description detail is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool's function: building a weekly Strava scorecard with specific components (volume, intensity, sport mix, bottlenecks, next-week actions). The verb 'build' and the resource 'weekly Strava scorecard' are specific, and the weekly scope distinguishes it from the sibling strava_daily_summary.

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. It does not mention strava_daily_summary for daily needs or other analysis tools like strava_get_athlete_stats. The word 'weekly' implies usage, but that's not explicit enough for an agent to make a selection decision.

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