get-athlete-stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose the primary output behavior: recent, year-to-date, and all-time totals across specific metrics and sports. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any authorization/privacy constraints, units of measurement, or how 'recent' is defined. 'Returns' implies a safe read but does not explicitly confirm it.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and immediately specifies the resource and scope. Every piece of information is relevant, and there is no wasted wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description is mostly sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool: it explains what the tool returns and the key dimensions (time ranges, metrics, sports). However, with no output schema or annotations, it could be more complete by mentioning units, the definition of 'recent', or access restrictions. Despite these gaps, the core selection and invocation needs are met.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter, athleteId, is clearly described as 'The unique identifier of the athlete to fetch stats for.' The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('activity totals') with scope details: recent/year-to-date/all-time, and distance/elevation/time for rides/runs/swims. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-athlete-profile or get-recent-activities, which focus on profile data or activity lists rather than aggregated totals.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need aggregated activity totals for a given athlete. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no alternative tool is named. The presence of similar siblings (get-all-activities, get-recent-activities) leaves room for ambiguity.

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