Review one activity in depth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it conveys a read-style return of identity, summaries, and intervals, and a dependency on athleteId. However, it does not disclose potential costs, failure modes, or whether data is freshly sourced versus cached, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loaded sentences accomplish the job: first states the output contract, second gives the alternative and the prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, it names the main return categories and routing guidance, but leaves 'canonical activity identity' and 'structured intervals' underspecified. Enough to select the tool, but not fully enough to anticipate the exact response shape.

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 0%, and the description only adds meaning for athleteId (source from list_athletes). activityId is left entirely to its property name and minLength, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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-resource pair ('Return canonical activity identity, source summaries, and structured intervals') and the title scopes it to 'one activity in depth'. It is distinguishable from broad listing tools but does not fully disambiguate from segment-focused siblings.

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 explicitly names read_series as the alternative and gives the exact condition for choosing it ('only when a specific sampled metric is required'). It also states a prerequisite: athleteId must come from list_athletes.

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