icu_list_athletes

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world traits, so the safety profile is already declared. The description adds value beyond annotations by noting it returns each athlete's access level and that this lets the caller know before writing whether a write will be permitted. It doesn't mention pagination or scale limits, but the access-level disclosure is meaningful behavioral context for a list tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then the critical call-first instruction. Every sentence earns its place: scope, when to use, and why the result matters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be spelled out; the description still highlights the key field (access level) an agent needs for downstream decisions. Combined with clear scope and call-first guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in the right situations.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per the rules. No parameter semantics to add, and the description correctly focuses on call ordering and return-usage rather than parameters.

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 verb (list) and resource (athletes) with clear scope: 'the caller plus anyone they follow or coach.' This distinguishes it from siblings like icu_get_athlete_profile, which fetches a single athlete's profile rather than enumerating accessible athletes.

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 says to call this FIRST whenever a request concerns someone other than the default athlete, and explains the precondition for other tools: resolving a name to an athlete_id. It names the concrete trigger and the alternative workflow (default athlete needs no call).

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