get_logged_in_athlete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only operation' and explains that the representation detail depends on the profile:read_all scope. This discloses key behavioral aspects beyond the simple GET request, though it could mention authentication requirements more directly. Still, it does not contradict anything and provides solid transparency.

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 concise, with the purpose front-loaded and the endpoint line providing slight redundancy (the title already says 'Get Authenticated Athlete'). It wastes little space and is structured clearly, though it could drop the endpoint label without losing meaning. It earns a 4 for being appropriately sized.

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 GET with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it returns, the scope-based representation difference, and that it is read-only. It does not explain error handling or rate limits, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information because there are none. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('currently authenticated athlete'), and distinguishes it from siblings that fetch zones, stats, or activities. The resource and scope are unambiguous, so an agent can easily identify what this tool does.

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 that it returns the authenticated athlete and notes the scope-dependent representation, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_stats or get_logged_in_athlete_activities. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it falls short of a 4.

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