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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation ('get') and lists the returned content, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens with invalid ids, though for a simple read tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and output content, and the second provides the input source. Every word 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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what the tool returns and where the input comes from. It could mention the return format, but the listed content fields give an agent sufficient understanding.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds the context that the id can be a slug from find_gyms, which slightly reinforces the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: retrieving a full public gym card with specific content (address, drop-in policy, visitor fee, weekly timetable). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('gym'), and the mention of 'full public gym card' distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_gyms.

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 explicitly says to use an id or slug from find_gyms, which provides clear context on when to use this tool and where the input comes from. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the source reference to find_gyms implies the distinction.

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