get_account_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it authenticates the account, selects a gym, assumes Europe/Madrid timezone if not configured, and warns that source gym names are untrusted external content. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: authentication/discovery, selection logic, timezone assumption, and trust warning. No fluff, no repetition of schema or annotations. The most important operational detail (gym selection) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the key behavioral aspects: authentication, gym selection, timezone handling, and trust boundary. It doesn't mention error cases or what happens if no gym is accessible, but for a read-only discovery tool with an output schema, this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that gymId overrides the default gym selection for this query. The schema only provides the pattern, so the description adds the semantic meaning of the parameter. It could be more detailed (e.g., what happens if gymId is invalid), but it covers the key behavior.

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: authenticate the configured account and discover accessible gyms. It also explains the gym selection logic (only gym, configured default, or gymId override), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that all focus on retrieving specific data types (sessions, bookings, workouts, activity).

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 when to use this tool: to authenticate and discover accessible gyms, and how gymId overrides the default selection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools are all data-retrieval tools for specific domains.

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