get_activity_export_url

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

Annotations already note readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the URL is temporary, may expire, and is limited to a single completed activity. This is meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single sentence delivers the core action, the supported formats, the single-activity scope, and the expiry caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple URL-return tool this is mostly usable, but with no output schema it leaves some ambiguity about the response shape and whether the URL is returned synchronously. It also omits the meaning of the required sportType, which an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate, but it only partly does. It conveys the meaning of format by listing FIT/GPX/TCX/KML/CSV and hints that activityId identifies an activity, but the required sportType parameter is completely unexplained.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Request'), a clear resource ('temporary COROS download URL for one completed activity'), and enumerates the supported formats. It clearly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like get_activity_detail or export_coros_backup.

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 intended use is implied clearly: use this when you need a downloadable file for one completed activity. However, it never explicitly mentions when not to use it or names alternatives, such as using export_coros_backup for bulk exports.

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