Get Segment Effort Streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a cache miss typically costs one API request, and missing headers do not exempt requests from known quotas — useful for an agent managing rate limits.

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 with the core action front-loaded and quota caveats appended. The final sentence about headers is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but 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?

A read-only, single-object fetch with full schema coverage and no output schema needs little more than this. The quota/cache-miss note fills the remaining gap an agent would care about; return-shape details are not needed without an output schema.

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 effort_id, keys and max_points are all documented in the schema, including the downsampling rule tied to max_points. The description's 'bounded/downsampled' phrasing merely echoes that, adding no new parameter semantics.

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: 'Get bounded/downsampled time-series data for a segment effort.' The resource qualifier ('segment effort') distinguishes it from strava_get_segment_streams and strava_get_activity_streams, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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 gives quota workflow guidance ('check strava_sync_status or strava://mirror/budget') but never says when to choose this tool over the stream siblings, nor what prerequisites (effort must exist, ownership) apply. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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