get_routes_by_athlete_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'Read-only operation.' and privacy filtering ('Private routes are filtered out unless requested by a token with read_all scope.'), which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits pagination behavior, error conditions, and response format, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it begins with 'List Athlete Routes,' which is redundant with the tool name get_routes_by_athlete_id, wasting a line. The rest is well-structured with the endpoint and description but could be tightened by removing the redundant heading.

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, the description provides only a vague return type ('a list of the routes'). It does not describe the structure of route objects, error responses, or how pagination parameters affect the returned data. While adequate for a basic listing tool, an agent might need more detail on response handling, especially since there is no output schema to fill the gap.

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 100%; id, page, and per_page are all described with defaults and meanings. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how pagination affects results or how id relates to the authenticated athlete. Since the schema already covers parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('athlete routes'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_route_by_id (singular) and route export tools. However, the phrase 'created by the authenticated athlete' is ambiguous given the id path parameter could refer to any athlete, which may confuse an agent about whether the endpoint is restricted to the current user.

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?

Usage is implied: the description says it returns a list of routes for an athlete, so an agent would naturally use it when that need arises. But it never explicitly mentions alternatives or conditions for choosing this over get_route_by_id, get_route_as_gpx, etc. No when-not guidance is provided.

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