search_clubs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions case-insensitivity, which is a useful behavioral detail, and lists the return fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, or describe what happens when no matches are found or how the limit parameter affects results. Given the simplicity of a search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core action ('Find clubs by name') and then provides essential details about the return values and how to use them. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 is simple, and the description covers the key purpose and return fields. An output schema exists, so detailed return value documentation is not the description's responsibility. However, it could have mentioned how the 'limit' parameter affects the result set, but given the schema default of 10 and the low complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 explains the 'query' parameter indirectly by saying 'find clubs by name', which gives it meaning. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned or explained in the description, and since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The schema provides the default and type, but the description adds no additional context for limit.

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's purpose: finding clubs by name, with the specific detail of case-insensitivity. It also lists the returned fields (team_id, name, Elo, league, country), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_players or search_coaches. The final instruction to use team_id with other club tools reinforces its role in the workflow.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find a club by name and obtain its team_id for further club-related operations. It also implicitly differentiates from get_club, which likely requires a known team_id. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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