get_gear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, but with an output schema present that is redundant, and it says nothing about behavior for invalid or missing gear ids. With annotations carrying the load, 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 short sentences with no filler, leading with the return contents and following with id provenance. The fragment-style opening ('One bike or pair of shoes:') is slightly clipped but not wasteful.

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 read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers what it returns and where the id comes from. Only error behavior for bad ids is missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema by decoding the id prefix convention: 'b... for bikes, g... for shoes'. That mapping is only hinted at by the schema's examples, so it is genuine added meaning for the single parameter.

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 names the exact resource (a single bike or pair of shoes) and enumerates the returned attributes (brand, model, nickname, total distance in meters), so an agent can tell this is a single-gear lookup rather than a list. It lacks an explicit verb ('get'/'retrieve'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 tells the agent where the required input comes from — 'gear_id on activities and in get_athlete' — which is direct prerequisite guidance and implicitly routes to the sibling tools that produce the id. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or contrast with other retrieval tools, keeping it below a 5.

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