pl_clubs_metadata

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

The description supplements the annotations by specifying the return shape (top-level array of objects with id, name, stadium, website) and stating no authentication is required. It also characterizes the data as a 'static config blob,' implying immutability. No contradictions with the read-only and idempotent hints.

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 extremely concise: one main sentence, a return type line, and an auth note. Every line adds distinct value, and the return format is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, return structure, and authentication in just a few lines, rendering the tool understandable without an output schema. Minor gap: it mentions 'colours' in the opening but omits it from the return sample, which could cause slight ambiguity about the actual response fields.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than inputs.

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 the tool provides club metadata (names, stadiums, websites, colours) specifically for theming, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pl_teams that serve different purposes. The 'static config blob' label further clarifies its precise role.

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 phrase 'for theming' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and 'Auth: none needed' simplifies access expectations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrasting tools, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent.

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