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.