club_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' communicates a read-only operation and optional filtering is disclosed, but return format, pagination, and access requirements are not mentioned. It is not misleading, but leaves some behavior implicit.

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, front-loads the main action, and contains no superfluous language. It is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter list tool, the description is nearly sufficient, but it does not clarify how club_members differs from club_search and, without an output schema, gives no indication of the returned member fields. These are meaningful gaps for tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so the query parameter is already documented as an optional search over name, capability, and language. The description only restates that filtering is optional and adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('all club members'), and adds an optional filter behavior. It is unambiguous in isolation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as club_search.

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 provides no guidance on when to prefer club_members over alternatives like club_search or firmy_list. The only usage cue is that the query parameter is optional, with no exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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