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.