Describe the Strava Mirror

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned in each mode, including descriptions, row counts, column types, units, and descriptions. It does not add much beyond that, such as freshness of row counts or any introspection limitations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact sentences, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the usage guidance immediately after. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter introspection tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers both operating modes and the intended workflow with strava_query. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains that omitting the table lists all tables/views. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining that supplying a table name switches the result to that table's columns with types, units, and descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing the mirror's tables/views or, for one table, its columns. It clearly distinguishes schema introspection from sibling data-query and Strava-domain tools, and the two operating modes are explicit.

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?

It gives direct routing guidance: 'Use before strava_query.' That names the key alternative and the condition for choosing this tool. It does not discuss when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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