get_athlete_profile

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: account internals (e-mail, API keys, OAuth scopes) are never returned, and the profile's time zone defines "today" for all other tools. That last point is important cross-tool semantics not derivable from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the selection cue and field list, then layers the privacy boundary and cross-tool semantics. The parenthetical "(read-only)" and the trailing "Details:" line are efficient, though the sport-setting sentence is slightly list-heavy.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates returned fields, one line per sport setting, and explicitly excludes account internals. Nothing needed to call this correctly or interpret its output is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so refresh, athlete_id and output_format are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond that. Baseline 3 applies; the field enumeration is about the return payload, not the inputs.

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?

Names a specific resource (athlete profile) and enumerates the fields it returns: name, sex, DOB, location, time zone, units, weight, height, resting HR, gear, plan/coach, plus per-sport settings. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by routing detail requests to get_sport_settings, get_training_zones and get_gear_list.

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?

"Use for who the athlete is" gives a clear selection cue, and the trailing routing line names three sibling tools for deeper detail, which prevents overlap. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions (e.g. don't call for activity data), but the alternative routing is concrete enough to guide selection.

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