Get athlete public profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and boundary behavior are covered by structured fields. The description adds only that the profile is 'public', which is modest extra context but does not disclose return shape, pagination, or field availability.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. The '(name, bio, location, etc.)' parenthetical is useful illustration, though the 'etc.' is slightly loose.

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 zero-param read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It never explains the difference from the similarly named sibling get_athlete, which is the main completeness gap an agent would care about.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The schema has no parameters to document, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed, so nothing material is missing.

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?

Clear verb (get) and resource (athlete public profile), plus an enumeration of what fields come back (name, bio, location). It does not differentiate from the sibling get_athlete, which appears to be a closely related tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. In a family that contains a sibling named get_athlete, the description never tells an agent which of the two to call or under what circumstances, leaving selection to guesswork.

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