get_athlete_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get lifetime and recent statistics') and includes helpful examples ('total runs, rides, swims, distances, etc.'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (simple read operation with no parameters), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to be complete. It adequately states what the tool does but fails to cover behavioral aspects like authentication, response format, or limitations. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps in context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('lifetime and recent statistics for the authenticated athlete'), including examples of what statistics are retrieved ('total runs, rides, swims, distances, etc.'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_activities' or 'get_athlete' by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than individual activities or athlete profile data. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for the authenticated athlete,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving personal statistics rather than general data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_activities' (for detailed activity lists) or 'get_athlete' (for profile info), and provides no exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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