Get club detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the exact return content categories (teams, poules, website, address, venues, board members) and notes that returned GUIDs can feed into other tools. It does not cover error/empty-result behavior, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences carry the essential information with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second sentence adds valuable routing context for downstream tools.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the call returns, and it does so by enumerating teams, poules, website, address, venues, and board members. It also connects returned GUIDs to related tools. It could mention how to discover the club GUID (e.g., via list_clubs), but the provided context is otherwise sufficient.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents club_guid. The description adds an example value and notes that returned GUIDs are reusable downstream, but it does not materially expand the meaning of the parameter itself. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get details'), a specific resource ('one club'), and an explicit identifier type ('by its GUID'), with an example format. It also names what the result contains, making it clearly distinct from list_clubs and other sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for use: when you need full club detail and associated team/poule GUIDs for downstream calls. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list_clubs or get_club_members, so it falls short of a 5.

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