pl_clubs_metadata

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

The description describes the tool as returning static config data with no side effects, effectively conveying it is a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does so adequately by indicating static nature.

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 with two sentences: the first clearly states purpose and content, the second specifies the return format. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return format and purpose. It could mention that it returns all clubs or note static nature more explicitly, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple read 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 tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing the return structure and fields beyond just the empty schema, aiding the agent in understanding the output.

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 it returns club metadata (names, stadiums, websites, colours) for theming, and specifies the return format as an array of objects with id, name, stadium, website. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pl_teams, which may also return club-related data.

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 usage for theming and notes it's a static config blob, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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