List athletes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds scope context (account-level, coach-only), which is useful but does not disclose other behaviors like return format or pagination. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It earns its place by adding the account scope and coach qualification.

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 the tool has no parameters, a rich annotation set, and no output schema, the description sufficiently states what it returns (athletes available to the account). It could mention output shape, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate. The coach-account context adds necessary usage information.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. The phrase 'available to this account' adds contextual meaning beyond the empty schema, reinforcing the scope of the returned data.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('athletes'), with a scope qualifier ('available to this account'). The parenthetical '(coach accounts)' clarifies the intended audience and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tp_list_athletes_in_group.

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 for when to use the tool: it lists athletes available to the coach's account. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the scope is specific enough to imply that group-specific listing should use tp_list_athletes_in_group. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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