Get club members

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It warns about list size ('Can be a large list'), suggests a mitigation (search filter), and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (relGuid, name, first name, birth date, gender, category). It does not disclose pagination or any limits, but for a read-only listing tool this is reasonable.

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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, size/search advice, and return fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description helpfully lists the return fields, and the schema covers all parameters. The main unanswered question is whether the return list is paginated or truncated when unsearchable, but the size warning mitigates that concern. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide to call it and know what to expect.

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 club_guid and search already explained in the schema. The description adds only a restatement that search filters by name, and does not clarify matching semantics beyond the schema's 'case-insensitive filter.' Therefore it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but adds little beyond it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the registered members (players, coaches, officials) of a club.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_club_matches and get_poule_standings, which target different resources. The explicit scope (players, coaches, officials) removes ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 does not name an alternative tool or state explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. It does imply the use case through its purpose, and it gives practical guidance: 'Can be a large list; use the search parameter to filter by name,' which tells an agent when to supply the optional parameter. This is more than no guidance, but it lacks the explicit alternative routing seen in stronger definitions.

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