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.