get_gear_details

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-open-world, and the description reinforces this while adding real behavioral context: what fields are returned (distance, time, activity count, dates, notes, reminders, component mileage) and, importantly, the negative disclosure that the recording power meter is not derived from gear. The cache detail lives in the schema rather than here, so it is not double-counted.

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 statement and safety profile before the dense enumeration of returned fields and the cross-tool routing. The return-field sentence is long and could be trimmed, but every clause carries information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned data, including the nested components of a bike. Combined with the sibling routing for activities and power-meter provenance, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool, though pagination/error behavior is left unaddressed.

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 gear_id, refresh (cache bypass) and athlete_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('details of one gear item') with the permitted resource types (bike, shoes, component) and the safety profile (read-only). It also distinguishes itself from the list sibling and from activity-level tools, so the agent can identify it before opening any 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?

The opening clause ('Use for the details of one gear item') gives a clear use context, and the description routes the agent to alternatives: get_activity_details for the recording power meter and get_activities(gear_id=...) for activities on the gear. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this for...' exclusion or a stated prerequisite beyond the gear_id hint.

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