get_athlete_zones

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format and required scope, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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 two sentences long, efficient, and front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by return structure and scope requirement. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (zones with min/max). It also covers the required scope. For a simple zero-parameter tool, it is fairly complete, though it lacks details on potential edge cases like missing zones.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses the clear verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'athlete's configured HR and power zones'. It also specifies the return structure with heart_rate.zones[] and power.zones[]. This is specific but does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_activity_zones.

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 mentions the required scope 'profile:read_all', which is a usage condition, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_zones, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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