get_segment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, external-data nature is covered. The description adds that athlete PR data is pulled in (an implicit auth/athlete-context dependency), which is useful, but it says nothing about rate limits, missing segments, or errors.

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 that moves from purpose to payload contents with no filler. The long comma-separated field list is dense but each item earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it still summarizes them. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient; only behavior on unknown segments is unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter segment_id has no description, but its name and integer type make its meaning self-evident and the description does not need to compensate much. No format, range, or lookup hints are provided.

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 (get detail) and resource (one segment), then enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_segment_efforts, and the meaning of 'PR (athlete_segment_stats)' is unclear without domain knowledge.

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 singular 'one segment' implies use when a specific segment_id is known, versus list_segment_efforts for effort listings, but no alternative is named and no prerequisites are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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