get_sport_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description confirms the read-only contract while adding real context: the snapshot-vs-live distinction versus get_activity_details, and the breadth of returned data. It does not mention the 10-minute cache behavior (only surfaced in the schema) or any auth requirements.

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?

Purpose and read-only status are front-loaded, followed by returned content and then alternatives. Every clause carries disambiguation value, though the dense enumeration of thresholds and zones makes it longer than strictly necessary.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (FTP, W', Pmax, LTHR, threshold pace, zones, gear, warm-up/cool-down) and by pointing to the three sibling tools covering adjacent needs. An agent has everything required to call it correctly.

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 all four parameters (refresh, athlete_id, sport_type, output_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level format or syntax detail beyond noting the per-sport grouping, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (current thresholds and settings per sport) with scope qualifiers (per sport, grouping of activity types like Ride/Run). It plainly identifies the read-only nature and distinguishes itself from siblings that touch overlapping data such as get_training_zones and get_activity_details.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: past-activity thresholds live in get_activity_details, zones-only in get_training_zones, and modifications in update_sport_settings. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with named alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

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