get_athlete_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context by listing the specific metrics returned, but it doesn't elaborate on authentication, rate limits, error cases, or other runtime behaviors beyond the annotation.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, usage, and argument explanation. It is front-loaded with the core function, contains no fluff, and every sentence provides 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what data is fetched, when to use it, and the parameter's default behavior. Minor gaps like error handling are low-risk for this use case.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the parameter with a description identical to the 'Args' section in the description text. Thus, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with 'Fetch athlete profile details, including FTP, LTHR, weight, max HR, and training zones,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools focused on activities, events, wellness, etc. It precisely states what data is returned.

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 second sentence, 'Use to inspect baseline athletic physiological metrics and training zone configurations,' provides clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, though no sibling tool directly overlaps with athlete profiles.

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