Get heart-rate and power zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context by noting the 'configured' nature of the zones and the specific auth scope required, which is not covered by annotations. This provides meaningful behavioral detail for a read operation.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that includes the resource, the endpoint, and the auth requirement. No redundant information is present; every phrase earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless nature of this read tool, the description sufficiently conveys what it returns (heart-rate and power zones) and its prerequisites. No output schema exists, but the description's mention of the content is adequate for the agent to understand the result. It could mention the response format, but that is not essential for such a straightforward getter.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly omits parameter details, and with no params to explain, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving the athlete's configured heart-rate and power zones. It names the specific resource (athlete zones) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'strava_get_activity_zones' by specifying 'athlete's' zones. The inclusion of the API endpoint adds precision.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires the profile:read_all scope,' which informs the agent when the tool can be invoked. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like strava_get_activity_zones or provide alternative use cases, so it lacks a when-not-to-use statement. This is useful, but not fully explicit.

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