Get Segment Streams

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive; the description adds behavior annotations don't capture — downsampling of large streams and a one-API-request cost on cache miss. The budget-check pointer is concrete operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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, front-loaded with what data is returned and then the cost/check caveat. No redundancy; the only mild density is the bare 'strava://mirror/budget' reference, which is unexplained but terse.

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 no output schema, the description does the necessary work by naming the returned stream contents and their bounded/downsampled nature, and it flags the API-cost implication. Three well-documented params need no more elaboration; only error/failure behavior is 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 coverage is 100%: keys enum, max_points bounds and default, and segment_id are all documented in the schema. The description echoes 'bounded/downsampled' without adding format or syntax the schema lacks, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('segment') and enumerates the data returned (GPS, distance, altitude), which is enough to select it over non-stream siblings. It never names the stream siblings (activity/route/segment-effort streams) explicitly, so differentiation by resource relies on the agent parsing names like strava_get_segment_effort_streams.

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?

Useful operational pre-check is given ('check strava_sync_status or strava://mirror/budget first'), but that is about budget management rather than tool selection. Nothing explains when to prefer this over strava_get_segment, strava_export_segment_gpx, or the effort/route stream tools.

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