strava_club

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

With no annotations provided, the description discharges transparency by enumerating what fields are included, what is excluded (discussion, leaderboard, etc.), and noting the data source (Strava's server-rendered page). This gives the agent a solid mental model of the tool's access limitations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, limitations, and source. No redundant phrasing or irrelevant details.

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 one-parameter public profile lookup, the description covers return fields, exclusions, and data provenance. It lacks only explicit error/edge-case behavior, which is not critical for this simple retrieval tool.

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 sole parameter id is described in the schema as 'Strava club ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no further format or constraints, but none are needed. Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Returns a Strava club's public profile' and enumerates specific fields (name, flags, location, description, member count, images). It clearly differentiates by stating what is not returned (discussion, leaderboard, etc.), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 implicitly frames usage as fetching base public club data and explicitly excludes data requiring a logged-in Strava session, which sets expectations. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or state explicit 'when to use' conditions beyond the inherent purpose. It's clear enough for a single-purpose lookup.

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