List clubs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the scope constraint and the HTTP endpoint, but not pagination or response details, which is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and includes the endpoint for reference.

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 list operation with fully documented parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly states the resource and scope, enabling correct invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (page and per_page), including descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so this is the baseline score.

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 explicitly identifies the resource (clubs), the scope (authenticated athlete), and the action (list). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like strava_get_club, which retrieves a single club.

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 states clear context: it lists clubs the authenticated athlete belongs to. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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