Private Clubs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuine scope disclosure beyond the annotations: 'Membership fees are not returned', which tells the agent the comparison is incomplete on cost. No return format, pagination or failure behavior is described, so the added value is real but thin.

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 sentence with zero filler. The compared facets are front-loaded and the caveat about membership fees closes it out efficiently.

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 enumerates the fields the comparison yields and flags what is excluded, which is enough for an agent to know whether to call it. It stops short of stating cardinality behavior (e.g. what happens if a slug is invalid) or response structure.

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 the single parameter is already documented as '2-3 club slugs to compare'. The description's 'by slug' and 'two or three clubs' merely restate the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it; 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?

States a specific verb (compare) and resource (clubs) and enumerates the compared facets: location, waitlist status, course details, amenities, website. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-entity siblings like get_club, though it never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of 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 multi-club 'compare two or three' framing implies the use case (evaluating several clubs side by side) versus fetching one, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any reference to get_club or search_clubs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that fields are returned 'where known' (nullable values) and that membership fees are excluded — a real scope boundary — but says nothing about behavior for an unknown slug or response shape.

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 action and resource, then the returned fields. The field list is long but each item earns its place since there is no output schema; no filler text.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and flagging the membership-fee gap, which is enough for a one-parameter read-only tool. Only error/not-found behavior is left unspecified, which is a minor omission at this complexity.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'slug' as the club URL slug. The description's 'by its slug' restates this without adding format or resolution detail, matching the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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?

Specific verb+resource (get one club by slug) with an explicit inventory of the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. The closing note that membership fees are excluded implicitly separates it from get_membership_info, but siblings like compare_clubs and search_clubs are never named.

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 by its slug' signals single-record lookup versus search_clubs/get_clubs_by_state, and the fee exclusion hints at get_membership_info. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 100-result cap, the best-known-first ordering, and the notable exclusion that membership fees are not returned.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the result limit and scope, then the ordering, then the optional filter and the excluded data. No filler and nothing buried.

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 discloses the result cap, ordering, and an excluded field. It leaves a small gap on what happens when more than 100 clubs match (truncation vs. pagination), but the essential calling information is present.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the full-names-only requirement for state. The description restates the optional type filter and the single-state constraint but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (clubs) with precise scope: up to 100 clubs in one US state or Canadian province, ordered best-known-first, with an optional type filter. The by-state constraint separates it from siblings in spirit, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_clubs or get_club, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the scoping ('one US state or Canadian province'), which tells the agent the input shape but not when this tool is preferable to search_clubs. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives.

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 this as a safe, idempotent, read-only call, so the safety bar is met structurally. The description earns credit by adding a scope boundary not in the annotations – the negative constraint that fee figures are not returned, which prevents the agent from promising cost data.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the positive return content and closed by the useful negative constraint. No filler sentences and nothing that fails to earn 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 single-parameter read tool with complete annotations, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description covers the return scope and the key exclusion. A minor mention of sibling routing would fully close the 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'slug'. The description adds no syntax, format, or example beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (membership availability/waitlist status plus profile url), which tells the agent exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_club, so an agent must infer the distinction between club-level and membership-level data.

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 by the noun 'membership availability' – there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like get_club or compare_clubs. Adequate for a simple lookup but leaves selection to inference.

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 behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a hard result cap of 25 clubs, that each result carries a profile url, and that membership fees are deliberately excluded from the response.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the capability and its facets come first, the return shape and its limitation second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 responsibly covers the return shape (up to 25 clubs, profile url) and a notable data exclusion (membership fees). It stops short of explaining what happens when more than 25 clubs match or how to page past that cap, which leaves a small but real 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter's syntax (comma-formatted place, exact amenity codes, full state names) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the searchable facets and adds nothing about parameter format, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (listed private clubs) and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_clubs_by_state or get_club, leaving that comparison to inference.

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 by the list of filter dimensions; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_clubs_by_state (single-state listing) or get_club (single record). No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so routing to the right sibling requires guesswork.

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