get_segment_efforts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get efforts' suggests a read operation, but the description doesn't specify what 'efforts' are (athlete attempts? performance metrics?), whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - just 5 words. While this is efficient, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. The single sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could benefit from additional context. It earns points for zero waste but loses one point for being too minimal.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. The agent needs to understand what 'efforts' are, what data structure is returned, whether this requires athlete authentication, and how this differs from related tools. The current description provides only the most basic purpose statement without addressing these contextual needs.

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, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'efforts' are or how the date filtering works. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 'Get efforts on a specific segment' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('efforts on a specific segment'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_segment' or 'explore_segments' - it's unclear what 'efforts' means compared to just getting segment data. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this is appropriate versus using 'get_segment' for segment metadata, 'list_activities' for broader activity data, or 'explore_segments' for discovering segments. The agent receives no contextual guidance about appropriate use cases.

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