icu_get_athlete_profile

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/notDestructive annotations by detailing the exact data returned: personal details, sport settings with thresholds, and CTL/ATL/TSB with form interpretation. This informs the agent of output scope and interpretative elements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists key data categories. No extraneous words; every element adds value.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure. It sufficiently covers the main output components (personal details, sport settings, fitness metrics) and notes form interpretation, which is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's deliverable.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (by default). Per rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it adds no redundancy.

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 retrieves the authenticated athlete's profile, listing specific data categories: personal details, sport settings with thresholds, and CTL/ATL/TSB with form interpretation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., icu_get_sport_settings, icu_get_fitness_summary).

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?

The description implies usage as a one-stop shop for athlete profile but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., icu_get_sport_settings for settings only). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on scope.

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