Athlete summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations by specifying the exact data returned (profile, gear, totals in km and hours, recent activities) and the units, helping the agent understand the tool's scope without relying solely on the schema.

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 with the key phrase 'One-shot overview' front-loaded. It efficiently lists the data categories and units without any wasted words, earning a 5.

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, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It specifies what data is included, the units, and the intended starting-point role. No significant behavioral or usage gaps remain.

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 one parameter (recent_activity_count) with full schema description coverage (100%). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, the score is 3.

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 the specific phrase 'One-shot overview of the authenticated athlete' and enumerates the exact contents (profile, gear, totals in km/hours, recent activities), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like strava_get_athlete (profile only) and strava_get_athlete_stats (stats only). The verb 'overview' and resource 'athlete' are explicit.

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 states 'Best starting point for questions about overall training,' which clearly indicates when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling tool list provides implied contrast. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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