icu_search_activities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context that the result list is 'light' and enumerates the fields returned, which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention any authorization needs or error cases, but given the read-only nature, this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted text. The first sentence states the purpose and result, the second provides usage guidance. Well-structured and 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately explains the limited result set and when to use vs. the sibling tool. It could mention pagination or boundary conditions, but overall it is complete enough for a focused search tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description hints that 'query' refers to activity name or tag, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with full schema coverage, a score of 3 is baseline.

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 the tool searches activities by name or tag, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'icu_search_activities_full' by specifying it returns a 'light' result list with only id, name, type, date, distance, time. This provides a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from similar tools.

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 advises using this tool first for 'find my X' queries, and only escalating to 'search_activities_full' for heavier data like power, HR, training load. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative.

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