get_club_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only operation,' which is a positive behavioral trait. However, it lacks disclosure about authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., 404), or rate limits, which are important for a non-annotated tool. The read-only note alone is minimal but sufficient for basic safety awareness.

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 compact, starting with the resource name 'Get Club' and including endpoint and read-only status in a few lines. It is slightly redundant with the separate 'Description' line that repeats the purpose, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded. No extraneous information is present.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description clearly identifies the returned object as a club. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of the returned club or any error responses, which could be helpful since no output schema is present. For a straightforward GET-by-id, this is adequate but not 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?

The input schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter with the description 'The identifier of the club.' The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no additional context about format or constraints that the schema doesn't already include.

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 'Get Club' and 'Returns a given a club using its identifier,' which clearly identifies the resource (club) and the verb (get). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_club_members_by_id and get_club_activities_by_id by focusing on the club itself, and the read-only note separates it from mutation tools.

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 the tool is used when you have a club identifier and want the club details, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for members, use get_club_members_by_id'). The 'Read-only operation' hint is the only guidance, so usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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