get-athlete-zones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data (implying read-only) and describes the output format (formatted summary and raw JSON), which is useful. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds output details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output format but misses authentication context and behavioral details. For a read-only tool with no structured data, it should do more to be fully complete.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is high. The description adds value by specifying that it retrieves data for the 'authenticated athlete', clarifying the implicit context. No parameters need explanation, so this compensates adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('authenticated athlete's configured heart rate and power zones'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-athlete-profile' or 'get-athlete-stats' by focusing specifically on zones. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication via 'connect-strava'), nor does it compare to similar tools like 'get-athlete-profile' that might include zone data. Without any usage context, this scores low.

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