get_account_context

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

The description discloses that time zones are unverified and source gym names are untrusted external content, adding valuable caveats beyond the annotations. It also explains the override behavior for gymId. Since annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent), the description adds contextual warnings appropriately. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the warnings are placed at the end. Every sentence contributes either to purpose or key caveats, making it efficient 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 simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema provided, annotations covering safety), the description covers the essential aspects: authentication, gym discovery, selection logic, and data reliability caveats. It does not redundantly explain return values since the output schema exists, and it doesn't need to elaborate further. It is reasonably 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 schema provides no description for gymId (0% coverage), so the description must explain its meaning. It states that gymId overrides the default gym selection, which clarifies its function. However, it does not define what a gymId is or its format, leaving some ambiguity; it only explains its effect. This partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 function: authenticate the account and discover accessible gyms, with a selection mechanism. It is specific and not a tautology. However, it mixes multiple actions (authenticate, discover, select), which slightly muddies the core purpose but remains clear.

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 explains the selection logic for gyms and the role of gymId, giving context for how the tool behaves. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but there are no siblings listed, so that is not a significant gap. It provides some guidance on the meaning of the optional parameter.

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