Find activities and likely races

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses pagination, read-only behavior, and the nuanced caveat that likely-race flags are not provider-confirmed, which adds valuable context beyond basic functionality. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then adding key behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

With 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the core filtering and pagination behavior but omits operational details such as default sort, cursor usage, and distance unit semantics. It is adequate for an initial agent selection but leaves several runtime details to be discovered.

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 property descriptions have 0% coverage, and the description only explains four parameter categories (sport, distance, name, date) while ignoring sort, limit, and cursor. It adds meaning with terms like 'canonical' and 'likely-race,' but leaves most parameters unexplained, forcing the agent to rely on schema names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('find') and clearly identifies the resource ('canonical activities') plus filter dimensions (sport, distance, name, date). The title and description distinguish this as an activity discovery and race-detection tool, separating it from sibling tools that describe, aggregate, or hydrate data.

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 provides clear context for what the tool does, implying it should be used when searching for activities by filters. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, so an agent must infer precedence relative to siblings like get_activity_segments or read_series.

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