get_club

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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields returned, format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get detailed information'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential intent without redundancy.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., club name, description, members), leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. For a read tool with no output schema, more context on the response is needed.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage (the 'id' parameter is documented as 'Club ID'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on the 'id' parameter (e.g., where to find it, format, examples), so it doesn't compensate for or enhance the schema.

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 resource ('detailed information about a specific club'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_club_activities' or 'get_club_members', which also retrieve club-related information but with different scopes.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a club ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_athlete_clubs' (which might list clubs) or 'get_club_activities' (which focuses on activities). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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