search_activities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('Searches the athlete's activity history') and return format ('JSON string with matching activities'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as pagination, ordering, or whether the search is case-sensitive, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief summary, a supporting sentence, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information without verbosity, and the key points are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the purpose, usage context, parameters, and return type. An output schema exists, so detailed return values are not needed. It lacks explicit differentiation from search_activities_full, but for a simple 2-parameter tool with good annotations (none here), it is fairly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an 'Args' section with examples for 'query' ('threshold', 'long run', 'race') and explaining the default for 'limit', going beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 'Search for activities by name or tag' and specifies 'Searches the athlete's activity history', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_activities_full', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 clear context with 'Useful for finding specific workouts or activity types', indicating when to use the tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear, matching the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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