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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing this as a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details like return format, not-found handling, or pagination, but for a simple get-by-id tool, the annotation coverage is adequate.

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 concise sentence (11 words) that front-loads the primary action. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no redundant phrasing 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 one-parameter get-by-id tool, the description covers the core purpose, and the annotations and schema provide basic facts. However, it lacks any differentiation from sibling tools and does not explain when this tool should be preferred over more specific club queries, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It mentions 'using its identifier', which maps to the id parameter, but provides no additional meaning beyond what the parameter name already suggests. No information about type, format, or required status 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 'Returns a given club using its identifier' uses a specific verb (Returns) and resource (club), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that return club subresources like activities, members, or admins. It explicitly names the retrieval action and the key identifier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getClubActivitiesById or getClubMembersById. The description does not mention any use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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