list-athlete-clubs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read (List) and scoped to the authenticated athlete, but it does not mention pagination, required OAuth scopes, rate limits, or response format. This is basic transparency but not comprehensive.

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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the verb 'Lists', followed by the resource and scope. No wasted words, clear and directly to the point.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool without an output schema, the description provides the essential information: what is listed and for whom. It could mention pagination or return type, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description adequately 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because there are none to explain.

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 verb (Lists), the resource (clubs), and the scope (the authenticated athlete's memberships). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools since no other club-related tool exists.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, but the usage is implied: it is the tool for retrieving the authenticated athlete's club memberships. No alternative club tool exists, so ambiguity is low, but explicit guidance is missing.

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