Get profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the operational context that the tool is 'rarely needed' and that other tools work without it, which provides some value beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe what the profile contains or any response format, leaving the behavioral picture slightly incomplete.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the core purpose and a useful usage hint, while the schema and annotations cover the remaining technical details. The only gap is that it doesn't mention what the returned profile contains or when the user might actually need it, but given the tool's simplicity and the 'rarely needed' note, the completeness is adequate.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, with a detailed description explaining the 'athlete' field and the coach-account distinction. The description itself adds no parameter information, but since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets an athlete profile, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It adds the note 'Rarely needed - other tools work without it', which hints at its optional role but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like tp_get_athlete_settings. The purpose is clear and correctly reflects the tool's function.

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 a usage guideline by saying 'Rarely needed' and 'other tools work without it', implying that this tool is not a prerequisite for most operations. However, it does not specify when the tool *should* be used or name any alternative tools. This is implied guidance rather than explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions.

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