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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral constraint that this is for discovery only and checkout is not available, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as response format or any prerequisites, so it adds moderate but not comprehensive value.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and content, and includes a concise usage caveat. Every clause provides meaningful information about scope and limitations, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description lists the return data types (profile, address, logo, policies, links) and the discovery-only limitation, which is helpful. However, it fails to explain the branch_slug parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. Given the low schema coverage and missing output schema, the description should compensate but does not fully do so.

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 0% and the only parameter, branch_slug, has no description. The tool description does not explain what branch_slug represents, how to construct it, or where it comes from (e.g., from search_clubs). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Branch Slug' string type.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('a club's public profile') and enumerates the specific content: address, logo, policies, and booking, landing page, and registration links. It also distinguishes this from checkout by explicitly saying membership checkout is not available, and the focus on public discovery separates it from sibling tools like list_public_classes or search_clubs.

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 gives context that this is for discovery only and explicitly states membership checkout is not available, which is an exclusion. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_clubs or list_public_membership_plans, nor does it mention alternative tools. The usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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