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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds useful context by enumerating the forecast outputs, which matters because there is no output schema, but it does not discuss limit behavior, pagination, or other operational constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the action, scope, and forecast contents efficiently.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and return contents, which is important because no output schema exists. Annotations cover the safety profile and the input schema covers parameters, so the description is largely complete, though it could do more to explain when to choose it over related weather or PGA tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description references round and tee time wave but does not add syntax or behavior beyond what the schema provides for round and limit, making 3 the appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource: forecast weather for the tournament, scoped by round and tee time wave, and lists the forecast metrics. The PGA-specific context comes from the tool name and title rather than the description itself, so sibling differentiation is present but not explicitly restated in the description.

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 when the tool is useful by specifying tournament, round, and tee time wave, but it does not say when to use this tool versus other PGA tools or versus other weather tools such as invoke_mlb_weather or invoke_nfl_weather. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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