Get athlete

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses concrete behavioral traits: the default is a compact 21-field-ish subset, the sportSettings payload is ~10 KB, credentials are always withheld, and email/DOB are gated behind explicit request. These are exactly the privacy and payload-size facts an agent needs and cannot get from 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the default/payload-size behavior and then the privacy caveats. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does: it explains the default vs. expanded shape, approximate sizes, and which fields are withheld. For a single-optional-parameter read tool, nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is already 100% for the single `fields` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds value beyond the schema: it names a concrete useful field ('sportSettings') with its contents and rough size, and flags that certain fields (credentials, email, DOB) behave specially when requested.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get the athlete profile: identity, physiology and account info'), which is far more informative than the tautological title. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_athlete_profile, leaving the agent to guess which of the two retrieves what.

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?

It implies when to use which field selection ('pass fields ["sportSettings"] for per-sport FTP... or ["*"] for everything'), but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_athlete over get_athlete_profile, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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