Get athlete stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the set of activities included (visible to Everyone) and the time ranges, which are not conveyed by annotations. No contradictions detected.

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?

Two concise sentences, each adding valuable information: what is returned and a critical visibility constraint. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no 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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what 'totals' means (e.g., counts, distances, times) and confirm that the athlete is implicitly the authenticated one. The mention of '{id}' without a schema parameter leaves ambiguity, and the return format is underspecified.

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 has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. However, the description references 'GET /athletes/{id}/stats', suggesting an athlete ID parameter that is not in the schema. This introduces ambiguity about how the athlete is selected, which detracts from clarity beyond the schema.

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 returns rolled-up ride/run/swim totals across specific time periods (last 4 weeks, year to date, all time) and includes the endpoint. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like athlete summary or zones.

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 implies usage for retrieving aggregate stats, but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. It mentions a visibility caveat ('Only counts activities visible to Everyone') but offers no direct guidance on tool selection.

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