get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication requirements, or whether the coach-team list can be empty. It only describes returned content, not 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?

It is a single short clause with no padding, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded action statement, and its brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than from tight editing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields. However, it omits who the profile belongs to, the read-only nature, and any auth/permission context, leaving gaps an agent would need to discover by calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the target is implicit (the authenticated athlete) rather than passed in.

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 names the resource's returned fields (athlete id, name, coach teams), which tells the agent this is a profile read, but it never uses a verb and never states explicitly that it returns the calling athlete's own profile. Sibling tools are all workout/session oriented, so confusion is unlikely, but the purpose is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus other getters (get_workout, get_exercise_stats, get_personal_records), and no mention of prerequisites such as being authenticated as an athlete. The agent must guess the trigger condition.

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