Get athlete settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating returned fields (athlete type, linked coach, preferences, units) and reinforcing that changes belong to separate update tools. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, followed by a concise pointer to relevant alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with 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 one-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description adequately covers scope and return content. It does not describe the exact response format or athlete authorization details, but those are inferable from the read-only intent and the parameter schema.

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%; the only parameter 'athlete' is fully documented in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('athlete account settings and profile fields') with concrete examples (athlete type, linked coach, preferences, units). It distinguishes from update tools by naming them, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tp_get_profile.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use the tool: 'To change training values use tp_update_ftp / tp_update_hr_zones / tp_update_speed_zones.' This provides a clear alternative and exclusion for mutation. It implies the read-only usage for retrieving settings but does not mention when to choose tp_get_profile over this tool.

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