get_club_activities_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares 'Read-only operation,' which is a key trait. It also notes 'Athlete profile visibility is respected for all activities,' implying the result set may be filtered based on visibility. However, it omits details like error behavior when the user is not a member, sorting order, or rate limits. The visibility note adds context but the description is not exhaustive.

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 structured with an endpoint line, a description paragraph, and a read-only note. It is reasonably concise, though it repeats the core idea ('List Club Activities' vs. 'Retrieve recent activities...'). The structure is front-loaded with the resource and then provides context. No unnecessary fluff, but slight redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, pagination, and no output schema, the description covers key operational details: membership requirement, read-only nature, pagination support, and visibility filtering. However, it does not describe the response structure or what fields are returned, nor does it explain potential errors (e.g., non-member access). The description is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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%—all three parameters (id, page, per_page) already have clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it just references pagination generally, while schema specifies defaults). Per the guideline, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states 'List Club Activities' and elaborates with 'Retrieve recent activities from members of a specific club.' This specifies the verb (retrieve/list) and the resource (club activities), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_club_members_by_id or get_activity_by_id. The resource is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'The authenticated athlete must belong to the requested club in order to hit this endpoint.' It also mentions 'Pagination is supported,' giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use get_activity_by_id vs. this), but the membership requirement provides clear context for when this tool is applicable.

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