compare_best_efforts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: read-only confirmation, the cost model ('one API call per activity and duration (up to 250) plus the list and gear calls'), an important caveat that different bikes' power meters are not calibrated, and that no verdict is returned.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'Use to...' purpose sentence, then dense but valuable detail on inputs, cost, and caveats. Every clause carries information, though the second block is a long run of comma-separated facts that could be slightly more scannable.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema analytical tool, the description explains what the result matrix contains (activities by duration with best average of the stream plus best activity per duration), the selection inputs, cost, and caveats, and points to a method guide. It is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates a few constraints (limit 10/max 25, at most 10 durations, last-90-days default) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('compare peak efforts ... of several activities side by side') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling by noting 'One activity in detail: get_best_efforts.' An agent can tell this apart from get_best_efforts and compare_power_streams without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios ('development over a block, races, or whether a new bike or power meter reads differently') and explicitly names the single-activity alternative. The condition that selects the alternative tool is spelled out, so nothing is left to inference.

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