icu_get_athlete_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the default target identity and the coach-scoped athlete_id override.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the default/override behavior. Every clause adds useful information with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, default behavior, and sole parameter sufficiently for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that athlete_id defaults to the authenticated athlete and is specifically for coaches reading managed athletes.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get an athlete's profile') and enumerates the returned data: sport settings and current CTL/ATL/TSB. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as icu_get_sport_settings or icu_get_fitness_summary, though the combined scope implies a broader profile read.

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 provides clear context for the optional athlete_id: defaults to the authenticated athlete, while coaches can pass an ID for a managed athlete. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like icu_get_sport_settings or icu_get_fitness_summary.

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