list_segment_efforts

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-obvious access caveat that 'Strava may require a subscription for this data', which is real behavioral context that an agent needs in order to interpret empty or error responses. It does not cover pagination behavior, though per_page is at least schema-documented.

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 scope and the returned fields, then the access caveat. The 'track progress on a climb or sprint' clause is mildly motivational but does convey intent, so there is no glaring waste.

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, the description does not need to enumerate return values, and its mention of elapsed time, heart rate and power is a helpful preview rather than filler. Combined with the subscription caveat and the athlete-scoped framing, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly, though guidance on handling empty results or pagination is missing.

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 75%: the schema documents per_page, start_date_local and end_date_local, but not segment_id. The description only indirectly implies the required segment_id ('on one segment') and adds no format or filtering detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (a single segment's efforts) with an explicit scope: it returns only the connected athlete's efforts, plus the data fields (elapsed time, heart rate, power, source activity). This distinguishes it from get_segment, which returns segment metadata rather than efforts. The verb is only implicit in the name, and no sibling is named, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

'so you can track progress on a climb or sprint' implies the intent (performance tracking over repeated efforts) but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_segment or list_activities. There are no explicit exclusions, such as guidance on retrieving another athlete's efforts or on what to do when the subscription requirement blocks the response.

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