search_activities_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output (JSON string) and the contents (all metrics, power data, heart rate, training load), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, mention potential performance impacts of a high limit, or describe error cases. While not misleading, it lacks thorough behavioral disclosure, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 well-structured: a clear summary, a differentiation/usage note, an Args list, and a Returns line. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple two-parameter search, the description provides adequate context: purpose, usage, parameter explanations, and return type. It could benefit from mentioning default ordering or whether it searches all activities globally, but these are minor omissions for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds practical value with concrete examples for the query parameter ('threshold', 'long run', 'race', '#interval') and confirms the default for limit. This goes beyond simply restating schema definitions, enriching the meaning of the parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Search for activities by name or tag') and clearly differentiates from the sibling tool by noting 'Unlike the basic search, this returns full Activity objects...' This firmly establishes the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the simpler search_activities.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this when you need detailed information about matching activities.' It also contrasts with the basic search, implying when the alternative would be more appropriate, thus covering when-to-use and the alternative.

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