Get Athlete Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's mention of 'public-visible' adds minimal behavioral context. No contradictions; the description is consistent but does not significantly expand on 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient for the agent to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description does not need to cover return values or safety. However, it lacks usage context and does not mention that stats are only for the authenticated athlete (though implied). It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters, but the tool description itself adds no parameter-level information. With schema description coverage at 50% (as per context), the description does not compensate for this gap, leaving the agent without additional meaning.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'public-visible aggregate Strava stats' for the authenticated athlete. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like strava_get_activity or strava_get_athlete, so it falls just 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for detailed activity stats vs aggregate stats). The description lacks any context for usage scenarios.

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