Get a Strava activity

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

With no annotations at all (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the activity doesn't belong to the authenticated athlete (404, access errors). No behavioral features are disclosed beyond the basic return action.

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?

A single concise sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes to purpose. Front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and immediately clear about scope.

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 fetch tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete — it explains what it returns. However, with no annotations declaring this as a non-mutating read operation, and no explicit mention that the activity must belong to the authenticated athlete or what error occurs otherwise, there's a modest completeness gap. Still, given tool complexity is low, it approaches adequacy.

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% — the single parameter activity_id already has a description ('Strava activity ID') including type constraints. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond referring to 'one of the authenticated athlete's activities,' which confirms the ID belongs to that athlete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 clearly states it returns the detailed record for one activity, with specific verb (Return) and resource (detailed record for an activity). It distinguishes from siblings: 'one of the authenticated athlete's activities' clarifies it's singular vs list_my_activities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_my_profile, though the difference is fairly obvious.

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 implies it's for fetching a single activity by ID ('one of the... activities'), which implies you need the activity_id. But there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, and nothing about needing to first obtain activity IDs via list_my_activities.

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