Get Route Streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds information the annotations cannot carry: results are bounded/downsampled, and a cache refresh costs one API request, which is a meaningful quota cost caveat for an openWorld tool.

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 short sentences; the payoff (what data you get) is front-loaded and the cost caveat trails it. Nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (GPS, distance, altitude). For a read-only stream fetch with full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete; only the shape/serialization of the returned points is left unstated.

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%, with max_points already documented as 'Maximum data points to return (10-2000, default 500). Streams are downsampled if larger.' The description's 'bounded/downsampled' reinforces that but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('streams for a route') and the data types returned (GPS, distance, altitude). The phrase 'for a route' implicitly separates it from strava_get_activity_streams and strava_get_segment_streams, though those siblings are never named outright.

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?

'Check strava_sync_status or strava://mirror/budget first' gives a concrete precondition before calling. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over strava_get_route or strava_export_route_gpx, leaving the key routing decision to inference.

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