garmin_activity_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys a read-only lookup and lists what the response includes, but it does not mention authentication/session dependencies or error behavior. Adding those would strengthen transparency.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the return contents are summarized compactly, and the prerequisite workflow is stated in the final sentence.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to obtain the required ID. It could mention authentication prerequisites, but the workflow and output schema make the definition reasonably complete.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by identifying activity_id as the lookup key and pointing to garmin_activities as the source for valid values. It does not explain the integer/string format nuance, but for a single obvious ID this is acceptable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for one activity by ID,' and clarifies scope by listing activity types and included data (summary, splits, metadata). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like garmin_activities or garmin_daily_summary.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use garmin_activities first to obtain valid activity_id values, which is a clear prerequisite and usage flow. It does not enumerate exclusion conditions against every sibling, but the by-ID detail scope makes those unnecessary.

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