athlete_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description confirms a read operation ('Get') and is consistent with annotations. It does not add further behavioral context, such as authentication requirements or response format, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden. No contradiction found.

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, well-formed sentence that directly states the action and target. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Get an Intervals athlete profile') and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), rich annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It communicates the essential purpose and is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does. Potential gaps like response structure are mitigated by the simplicity of the operation.

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 input schema fully documents the sole parameter athleteId, including its type, description, and default value, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it relies on the schema. With this high coverage, a baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Intervals athlete profile'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like activities_list and wellness_list, which target different data types. It is not a tautology, as it provides context about the system (Intervals).

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 use for retrieving athlete profile data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions (e.g., 'use activities_list for activities'). The intended context is inferable from the name and siblings, but explicit guidance is absent.

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