get_athlete_clubs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'authenticated athlete', implying authentication is needed, but doesn't detail rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema covers), error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, data fields). This leaves significant gaps for a read operation with no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication specifics, response format, error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with two parameters and behavioral nuances, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective use.

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%, with both parameters ('page' and 'per_page') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of clubs, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'clubs the authenticated athlete belongs to', which specifies what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_club' or 'get_club_members', which also retrieve club-related information but with different scopes or filters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_club' (for specific club details) or 'get_club_members' (for club membership lists), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication requirements or context for retrieving athlete-specific clubs.

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