Get Athlete Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by specifying that stats are scoped to the authenticated athlete and by naming exactly which aggregate buckets come back, filling in return-shape information the annotations do not carry.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the returned aggregates enumerated second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by listing the aggregate categories and the two biggest-effort metrics. Exact field names and units are still unspecified, which is a minor gap for a low-complexity, single-parameter read tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema explicitly marks athlete_id as ignored for compatibility, so the parameter burden is already met. The description reinforces this by saying the stats belong to the authenticated athlete, which tells the agent it does not need to resolve an ID before calling.

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 (get activity statistics) and enumerates the exact breakdown it returns: recent, year-to-date, and all-time totals for runs, rides, and swims, plus biggest ride distance and biggest climb. That scope cleanly separates it from strava_get_authenticated_athlete (profile) and strava_get_activity_zones, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 the usage context by saying the data is for the authenticated athlete, which steers the agent away from the per-activity tools. It never states when to prefer this over strava_list_activities or strava_get_authenticated_athlete, and gives no exclusions.

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