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.