Get Brawl Stars club

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'Full details' but does not specify what fields are returned, whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits. For a simple get operation, the lack of explicit read-only declaration and return format leaves some ambiguity.

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 of 15 words, front-loading the purpose with no wasted words. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the resource and input. However, it does not specify the output structure or any prerequisites, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description only mentions 'by tag' and explains what a club is, but does not add format, examples, or constraints for the 'tag' parameter. With low coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('club' with explanation as Brawl Stars' clan equivalent), and input method ('by tag'). It distinguishes from siblings like bs_get_club_members, which retrieves members rather than full details.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full club details using a tag. It implies when to use (when you need club information) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though the sibling tools cover related but distinct purposes.

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