Search generated context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: results are tool recommendations, not numeric claims. It also notes a required dependency on list_athletes. However, it does not reveal result shape, pagination, rate limits, or explicitly state read-only behavior.

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 core action and immediately followed by the key behavioral result. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a nested filter parameter with enum choices. The description explains the high-level purpose and a prerequisite, but omits practical details like how to build the query, valid filter columns/operators, and what the response resembles, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It explains that athleteId comes from list_athletes, which is valuable, but it gives no meaning for query, limit, or filters, and no guidance on valid filter columns or operators.

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 clearly identifies the specific resource: compact generated activity, plan, nutrition, and message context. It also distinguishes the tool's role by stating that results identify authoritative follow-up tools rather than making numerical claims, which separates it from the numeric analysis 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?

The description gives useful context for when to use the tool: when a routing decision to follow-up tools is needed, and it calls out the prerequisite of athleteId from list_athletes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full separation guidance.

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