Icu List Athletes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds context annotations cannot: the response carries each athlete's access level so the agent can predict whether a later write will be permitted, and notes_truncated=true signals a truncated preview. That is exactly the decision-relevant behavior an agent needs before routing to a mutation 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?

Three sentences, no waste. The scope comes first, then the usage imperative, then the return-value caveat — a strong front-loaded structure with the routing rule in the most scannable position.

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?

Output schema and rich annotations already cover return shape and safety, so the description only needs the resolution workflow and the truncation escape hatch — both are present. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly adds no invented parameter detail and instead spends its words on how the returned athlete_id feeds other tools.

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 and resource ("List the athletes") plus the exact scope: "the caller plus anyone they follow or coach." That scope definition clearly separates it from siblings like icu_get_athlete_profile, which returns a single athlete's 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?

Gives an explicit invocation rule: "Call this FIRST whenever a request concerns someone other than the default athlete, to resolve a name to the athlete_id that other tools take." It also names the alternative for the adjacent need (icu_get_athlete_profile for full note text), so both the condition and the fallback are covered.

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