buscar_clubes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only search operation and mentions optional filters, but it does not explain the return format, behavior when no filters are provided, pagination, or potential limits. For a low-risk search tool this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 short sentences that front-load the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning: the domain, the optional filter behavior, and the filter fields. There is 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 simple search tool with zero required parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and filter options. It does not mention return values or explicitly route away from sibling tools, but these are minor omissions given how straightforward the tool is.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the filter names (nombre, ubicacion, deporte) and adds the notion of optionality, but it does not add deeper semantics such as partial matching, case sensitivity, or how multiple filters combine. It does not need to compensate much because the schema already documents each parameter.

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 action ('Busca') on a clear resource ('clubes deportivos registrados en SportLink') and lists the filter dimensions. The resource type 'clubes' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like buscar_pruebas, buscar_entrenamientos, and buscar_entrenadores.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when searching for sports clubs in SportLink, with optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tool names make the resource boundary obvious, so this is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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