get_account_context

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it documents the GYM_REQUIRED error path, the fallback rule (the only gym if none chosen), the explicit Europe/Madrid time-zone assumption versus a user-confirmed zone, and a trust-boundary warning that gym names are untrusted external content. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to react correctly to the result and to the failure case.

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 primary function is front-loaded, but the middle sentence is a long run-on that enumerates defaults sub-fields (workout class, participant filter, weekly booking plan structure, weekday multiplicity) already documented by the output schema. That enumeration dilutes the high-value sentences about GYM_REQUIRED, the time-zone assumption and the untrusted source names.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the call does, its failure mode, its fallback rules, an explicit default assumption, and a data-trust caveat. Nothing material is left to inference for a context-gathering tool of this simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description instead characterizes the returned shape (gym, defaults with class, participant filter, weekly plan entries, friend count), which is useful orientation even though an output schema exists.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: authenticate the configured account and report its gym, plus the account's defaults. It is clearly distinct from every sibling (all booking/exercise operations), though the description never explicitly says so or names an alternative. The added detail about the GYM_REQUIRED condition sharpens what the tool returns.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is evidently the bootstrap/context call, but the description never says 'call this first' or 'use this before prepare_booking_creation to resolve the gym'. The one genuine usage signal is the GYM_REQUIRED failure mode, which tells the agent when the call cannot resolve a gym and what the account holder must do on the settings page.

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