Icu Get Best Efforts

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the remaining burden is low. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: the analysis is confined to one activity and at least one of duration/distance must be supplied. It stops short of describing result ordering/format, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

Three tight sentences: the core operation and constraint come first, the sibling disambiguation second, and usage examples third. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and a fully documented 5-parameter schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: single-activity scoping and the duration/distance requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 all five parameters are already documented with defaults and examples. The description's examples ('20-min power', '5k splits') reinforce duration/distance semantics but add no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Find the top-N peak efforts') bounded by an explicit scope ('WITHIN a single activity') and a parameterized resource ('stream + target duration or distance'). It also names the class of siblings it differs from ('get_*_curves'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus the curve tools ('which span many activities') and supplies two concrete use cases ('best 20-min power on this ride', 'top 5k splits in this run'). It also states a hard precondition: at least one of duration or distance is required.

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