euroleague_clubs

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by documenting the return shape, stating that no authentication is needed, and explaining the significance of the `code` field. It does not disclose edge cases, but for a simple read-only list this is adequate.

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 well-structured: it opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then lists the return format, an example, and authentication requirements. Every line contributes useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the response structure and includes a concrete example. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the input schema covers parameters. The tool is simple enough that no further context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does include an example request with `competition` and `season` values, which slightly aids understanding, but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 what the tool does: returns clubs for a season with city, country, and venue details. The example and the note that `code` is used elsewhere further clarify its role. It is distinct from sibling tools like euroleague_games or euroleague_people.

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 use case is obvious: retrieve clubs for a EuroLeague/EuroCup season. The example request and the explanation of the season code provide clear context. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but none are needed since this is the only EuroLeague club-listing tool among siblings.

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