Get Athlete Zones

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds the nuance that zones are returned 'when available,' which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not explain what happens if zones are unavailable (e.g., empty response or error) or any privacy implications related to the privacy_mode parameter.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core function without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema and strong annotations, so the description does not need to detail return values or safety. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this over strava_get_activity_zones, and does not clarify the optional parameters' effects or the 'when available' caveat. This makes it adequate but not fully complete for safe and 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?

The description makes no mention of parameters. The schema covers two of three parameters (privacy_mode and explicit_user_intent) with useful descriptions, but response_format lacks a description, leaving a gap. Since comprehensive schema coverage is not high (67%) and the description adds zero parameter context, the tool's description does not help compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 tool gets the authenticated athlete's heart-rate and power zones, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool strava_get_activity_zones, which likely serves a different purpose (activity-specific zones), creating potential ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like strava_get_activity_zones or other zone-related tools. The phrase 'when available' implies a conditional outcome, but there is no clarification of prerequisites, such as whether zones must be configured, nor any direction to alternative tools for activity-level zones.

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