euroleague: Get clubs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (names, codes, venues, country), which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 14 words, efficiently conveying purpose and output. No extraneous content; every word serves a purpose.

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 simple listing tool with two parameters and annotations covering safety, the description adequately specifies the output (names, codes, venues, country). It does not mention ordering or pagination, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds clarification for season_year (e.g., '2024 for the 2024-25 season') and reinforces competition values. This adds some value beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 action (list), resource (clubs), scope (participating in a EuroLeague/EuroCup season), and the data returned (names, codes, venues, country). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on club information for Euroleague/EuroCup.

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 implies usage for retrieving club data for a specific season but does not explicitly mention when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives. No exclusion criteria are provided, making it adequate but not proactive.

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