Nearby Clubs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses ordering ('nearest first'), scope ('near the home gym'), and a notable live-data trait ('live headcount'). It does not mention authentication, data freshness limits, or behavior when no clubs are found, but for a simple read-style tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core scope ('Clubs near the home gym') and then packs in ordering, distance, and live headcount efficiently.

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 low complexity, fully documented parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned, from where, and in what order. It could add a note on authentication or data freshness, but nothing critical is missing for a basic nearby-clubs lookup.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents limit and radius_km. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (clubs near the home gym), the ordering (nearest first), and the returned fields (distance, live headcount). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not directly contrast with sibling tools, but its meaning is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would use this when it needs nearby clubs with distance and headcount. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like occupancy or visits, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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