Hat Trick Local Directory

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description corroborates this with 'Opening it changes nothing' and further discloses that the recipient completes the claim on the page, not the caller. It adds genuine context beyond the annotations rather than repeating them, and introduces no contradictions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the link is, followed by the side-effect clarification and the critical do-not-open warning last. No filler and no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys that the return value is a shareable link and how it behaves downstream, including the already-claimed path. It stops short of stating anything about link expiry, reuse, or permissions, which would matter for a handoff artifact but is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single org_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the fallback that older keys or plain slugs work. The description contributes only indirect framing ('runs a club or store') and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 establishes the artifact (a claim link for a club/store's free listing) and its audience (the owner), so an agent can tell this produces a shareable claim URL. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-identical siblings create_correction_link and create_shop_link, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

It states the intended handoff scenario, covers the edge case where the listing is already claimed (submit anyway, Hat Trick Local reviews), and gives an explicit prohibition: 'Never open the link to submit for the person.' That is when-to-use, what-happens-otherwise, and when-not, all spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the human-in-the-loop flow (the person writes and sends it, Hat Trick Local reviews before anything changes). That tells the agent no data mutates at call time, which the annotations alone only assert indirectly.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the link is before the workflow detail and the prohibition. Slightly loose opening fragment ('A link to hand a person...') but every sentence carries information, with no padding.

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 two-parameter, read-only link generator with no output schema, the description covers what is produced, how the recipient experiences it, and the approval gate afterward. The only mild gap is that it never explicitly says the tool returns a URL string rather than performing the correction.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the enum. The description reinforces the meaning of `field` ('preselects what is wrong') but adds no format, constraint, or example beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 produces a concrete artifact ('a link to hand a person who found something wrong in a listing') and explains its effect (opens the listing with the correction form open). It is clearly distinct from create_claim_link/create_shop_link by resource, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'creates and returns' and never names the siblings.

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?

It gives a clear trigger (someone reports something wrong in a listing) and an explicit prohibition ('Never submit for the person'), which is a real when-not rule. It stops short of routing to alternatives such as create_claim_link for ownership issues versus this tool for data errors.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description adds useful behavior: many listings do not sell online, in which case the answer says so and provides the listing page. It also sets a clear transaction boundary by telling the agent never to order or pay for the user.

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 three compact sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the fallback behavior and transaction warning in a logical order.

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, read-only tool, the description provides enough context about what is returned and how to handle listings without online sales. It does not specify the exact return format, but no output schema exists and the described behavior is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single org_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it can come from a search or be an older key/plain slug. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 resource: a link to a club or store's online shop on Hat Trick Local. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling link tools like create_claim_link or create_correction_link, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 the tool is used to provide a shop link and explicitly warns the agent never to order or pay for the user. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as create_claim_link, create_correction_link, get_club, or get_store.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned content, including that season records carry source links and verification status and that website/shop/action links appear 'when it has them' — a useful absence signal. It does not say what happens when the org_key is unknown or invalid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the payload contents listed after the core statement; the parenthetical about sources and verification is dense but informative. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations, though the nested commas make it slightly hard to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (contacts, programs, locations, season records with provenance, optional links). The main remaining gap is error/not-found behavior, which an agent calling with a stale org_key would want to know.

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?

Coverage is 100% on a single parameter, and the schema already explains that org_key comes from a search and that older keys or slugs are accepted. The description adds no additional detail about the key format or behavior beyond what the schema states, so baseline 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 states the resource precisely ('One club's full listing') and enumerates the payload: contacts, programs, locations, season records, website, shop and action links. It implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling search_clubs by scoping to 'one club', but never names that sibling or the verb 'get'/'retrieve' explicitly.

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 is only implied: 'One club's full listing' suggests a lookup by key rather than a list search, and the schema tells the agent the key comes from a search. There is no explicit statement about when to use this over search_clubs, get_store, or list_registration_windows, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and lack of destructiveness, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape and hedging on optional fields ('hours where listed', 'when it has them'), which is important given there is no output schema. It stops short of stating auth needs or what happens with an invalid key.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then lists the payload. It is dense but every clause maps to a returned field; a more explicit verb or a usage pointer would have justified 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?

With one param, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what comes back. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (invalid or unknown org_key), which is minor for a read-only detail lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains that org_key comes from a search and that older keys or slugs also work. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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 frames the tool as retrieving a single store's complete record and enumerates the fields returned (address, phone, hours, brands, team outfit capability, ordering/action links). The singular 'one store's full listing' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_stores, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is the detail-fetch step after search_stores, and the schema note 'org_key from a search' reinforces that flow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion naming the alternative to use for discovery.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety burden is low; the description still adds value by disclosing what each returned window contains (opening/closing dates, season, source link, verification), which is important for judging data trustworthiness. It omits pagination/cursor behavior and the result cap, both of which live only in 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?

Scope is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by concrete example queries, filter guidance and return contents – no filler sentences. Phrasing is slightly awkward ('on record across clubs') but the content is dense and 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?

For a read-only, nine-param search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the domain, the driving questions, the filter axes, and the shape of returned records. The absence of output schema is offset by the explicit list of per-window fields.

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 100%, so all nine parameters including the 400-day range cap and enum values are already documented. The description's 'filter by state, town, club name words, status and dates' merely restates them at a high level without adding syntax or interaction semantics (e.g., how date vs. from/to combine).

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?

States a specific resource (registration windows across clubs) and anchors it with sample questions, so an agent immediately knows this is a curated registry of registration periods rather than general club search. It does not explicitly name a sibling like search_clubs to route against, which keeps it below a 5.

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 example questions ('which clubs in Ohio have registration open now', 'what opens in January') effectively demonstrate the intended query shape, and the filter list tells the agent how to narrow. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: the fuzzy-match fallback, the fields each result carries (org_key, town, registration status with dates and source, fee range, verification), and the geographic coverage limit. It stops short of pagination or result-ordering behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and searchable dimensions, followed by usage, result shape, then a coverage caveat. It runs long as a single dense paragraph, but nearly every sentence carries unique information and none are merely restating the title.

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?

With no output schema and ten optional parameters, the description does the needed work: it explains what each result contains, how fallback matching behaves, and how to interpret empty results. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or read its output is missing.

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 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented in structured fields, establishing the baseline of 3. The description restates the main axes (name, town, state, distance) and adds a hint that results carry distance_mi for proximity searches, but contributes little parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (youth sports clubs) within a named directory, plus the searchable dimensions (name, town, state, distance). It also distinguishes its role from get_club by calling out org_key as the handoff value, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use it whenever a person names a club, including vague or misspelled names, and explains the fuzzy fallback ('when no listing matches every word, the answer lists candidates with similar names'). It also sets expectations about coverage: no result outside OH/PA means not in this directory, not that no club exists.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: it discloses that each result carries org_key, which is the precondition for the get_store and create_*_link siblings, and this substitutes for the absent output schema. It stops short of describing pagination or result-shape limits beyond org_key.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence earns its place by naming the org_key handoff, which no structured field in this definition provides.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields (address, phone, brands, team-outfitting flag, org_key) so an agent knows what a hit contains. Parameter behavior is fully covered by the schema. Minor gap: no mention of paging via cursor or how to proceed when results are empty.

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 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented, including radius_mi defaults and the query fuzzy-match behavior — this sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the filter axes (name, chain, town, state, distance) and hints that team_dealer means 'outfit teams', but adds no syntax or interaction detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find local sports stores') and enumerates the searchable axes (name, chain, town, state, distance) plus the fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from get_store by saying results carry org_key 'for get_store', but never contrasts itself with the sibling search_clubs.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for store lookups and that get_store follows for detail. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement of what to do when a search returns nothing (only the schema's query description hints at fuzzy fallback).

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