get_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing what is included and noting that map polylines are removed, which is a meaningful data omission. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but that is a lower burden given the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then a compact field list. The removal note is useful and every clause earns its place.

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?

Because an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description need not explain return values in full. It provides enough scope and field coverage for an agent to understand the tool, though it omits prose guidance on include_efforts and sibling routing.

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 50%: include_efforts is richly documented in the schema, while activity_id has no description but is obvious from 'one activity'. The main description itself does not mention include_efforts or add parameter-level meaning, so it neither compensates for the gap nor harms understanding.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Full detail for one activity', and it enumerates concrete returned fields such as calories, gear, laps, splits, heart rate, and power. It distinguishes itself from list-style tools by emphasizing a single activity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from specialized siblings like get_activity_laps or get_activity_zones.

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 phrase 'Full detail for one activity' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as get_activity_laps, get_activity_zones, or get_activity_streams. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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