get_club

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the null return when no club has the given id, which is a key behavioral trait beyond the schema. It also specifies the record contents, providing useful context. Doesn't mention auth/rate limits, but these are less critical for a simple getter.

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 that front-loads the core function, then lists fields and null behavior. No redundant wording, all information earns its place. Structurally efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are already structured. The description covers the essential: what it does, the parameter semantics, and the null edge case. Given the simple 1-parameter tool, no further context is needed for a complete understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining team_id is the club identifier and that a null return occurs for a non-existent id, giving meaning beyond the raw integer type. However, it doesn't mention any constraints like positive integer or that the id comes from search_clubs, which could be clearer.

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 tool retrieves a club's current record by team_id, listing specific fields (name, Elo, league, country, standout player). It distinguishes from siblings like search_clubs (by ID vs search) and get_club_squad_gaps (different data focus).

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 when you have a team_id to look up a direct club record. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the 'by team_id' context provides clear guidance. Missing explicit sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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