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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication ('authenticated athlete') but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens if no activities exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and concise, using three clear sections: a purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but misses behavioral details like error handling or response format. The return statement is vague ('Dictionary containing activities data'), leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'limit' by explaining it's the 'Maximum number of activities to return (default: 10)'. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this adequately compensates. However, it doesn't detail constraints like minimum/maximum values or how ordering works.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the authenticated athlete's recent activities.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('activities'), and scope ('authenticated athlete's recent'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_recent_activities' or 'get_activities_by_date_range', which appear to serve similar functions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_recent_activities' and 'get_activities_by_date_range' available, there's no indication of differences in scope, filtering, or use cases. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves activities but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using bullet points for readability. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains parameters without unnecessary details. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Dictionary containing activities data'), slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, the vague return statement ('Dictionary containing activities data') is a minor gap, but overall, it meets a baseline for a read operation tool.

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?

The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explicitly defines each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., 'start_date: Start date in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)'), including the default for 'limit.' This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, making parameters clear and actionable.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get activities within a specific date range,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activities' or 'get_recent_activities,' which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activities' or 'get_recent_activities.' It mentions date range filtering but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it is read-only, but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure, but the return description ('Dictionary containing activity details') is vague and could be more informative. Overall, it is concise with little 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential errors, or how this tool fits with siblings. For a retrieval tool with undocumented behavior and output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('activity_id') and states it is 'ID of the activity to retrieve,' which clarifies the parameter's role. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description does not fully compensate by explaining format constraints or examples, so it scores slightly lower.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific activity.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('activity'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activities' or 'get_activities_by_date_range' beyond implying retrieval of a single activity by ID.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for retrieving a single known activity versus listing multiple activities. Usage is implied by the parameter name but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves activities but doesn't mention critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The return format is vaguely described as a 'Dictionary containing activities data' without detailing structure or content.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the formatting enhances readability. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

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 read-only tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or data format, and it doesn't provide usage guidance relative to siblings. Given the low complexity, it's minimally viable but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema's basic types and defaults. It explains that 'days' specifies 'Number of days to look back' and 'limit' sets the 'Maximum number of activities to return', which clarifies their functional roles. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('activities'), specifying a time-based scope ('from the past X days'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_activity_by_id' by focusing on recent activities, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_activities' or 'get_activities_by_date_range'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activities_by_date_range' or 'get_activities'. It mentions a time-based scope but doesn't clarify if this is the preferred method for recent activities or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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