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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with these. The description adds a small amount of context by naming the returned configuration fields, but it does not provide additional behavioral details such as auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior with missing parameters.

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 a single, lean sentence that leads with the verb, names the resource, and lists key fields in parentheses. Every word contributes, with no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 a simple tool, good read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a decent but not complete picture. It names the configuration fields, but omits any guidance on parameter usage, optionality, or what happens when no parameters are supplied. Given the tool's potential account and branch scoping, this is an avoidable 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the input parameters. It does not mention 'account' or 'id_branch' at all, and simply says 'gym/branch configuration' without clarifying what values these parameters accept or whether they filter/scope the result. The property names are somewhat evocative, but not enough for reliable invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('gym/branch configuration'), and enumerates the content ('name, timezone, gateway, occupation, card flags'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling evo_* tools, which target members, activities, sales, and other domains.

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 implies when to use the tool—when branch/gym configuration details like timezone or gateway are needed—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent infers context from the listed fields rather than explicit guidance.

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