get-athlete-profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly uses 'Fetches' to imply a read-only operation and notes that it returns an ID, but it does not disclose details such as authentication scope, rate limits, or the exact set of profile fields returned. This is adequate for a simple no-parameter read tool but falls short of rich transparency.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, immediately states the output's key value, and includes a concrete example of downstream usage. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, identifies the primary output (numeric ID), and provides a usage link to other tools. However, it does not enumerate the full profile fields or specify any error conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and no parameter documentation is required. The description adds meaningful context about the output (the numeric ID), which is more than the schema provides. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and this description meets that bar.

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 with a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('profile information for the authenticated athlete'). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool by highlighting the unique numeric ID that other tools (e.g., get-athlete-stats) depend on, which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 clear usage context by stating the profile ID is needed for other tools like get-athlete-stats, implying this should be called first to obtain that ID. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is practical and unambiguous for its intended role.

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