get_athlete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'connected athlete' framing, implying an authenticated single-user context, but says nothing about error behavior when no athlete is connected or about response shape/pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler. The field enumeration is the only content and it is delivered immediately.

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 zero-parameter read with an output schema present, the description does what is needed: it identifies the resource and gives a preview of the payload. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies the boundary against the overlapping gear/club/stats siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly spends no words on them.

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 resource (the connected athlete's profile) and enumerates its contents — name, location, sex, weight, FTP, measurement preference, bikes, shoes, clubs. That is clear and concrete, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_athlete_stats, get_athlete_zones, get_gear or list_clubs, whose data appears to overlap with the bikes/shoes/clubs mentioned here.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With three get_athlete* siblings plus get_gear and list_clubs in the set, an agent gets no signal about why it should pick this tool for gear or club information rather than the dedicated tools.

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