BookTheTee Golf Tee Times

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description compensates by disclosing the return content (deep link plus booking method), which is meaningful given there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements or failure modes, so it is not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and return payload front-loaded ahead of the usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return content, and the user-facing action. The only real gap is that the slug's origin/format is left to the schema, which is undocumented.

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 0%, and the single parameter "slug" is never mentioned by name or format. The phrase "for a course" implicitly identifies what the slug refers to, which is partial compensation but leaves the agent inferring the identifier's meaning and shape.

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+resource: it returns the official booking deep link and the booking method (online/phone) for a course. An agent immediately knows this is a retrieval tool for booking URLs. It does not explicitly name the siblings get_course or search_courses to differentiate scope, which caps it at 4.

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?

"Send the user here to book" gives a clear, actionable when-to-use cue tied to the user's booking intent. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against get_course (e.g., use that for details, this for the booking action), so it stops short of 5.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the record contents (fees, caveats, resident rules, sources), but says nothing about behavior when the slug is unknown or whether the record can be partial — a gap, though modest given the read-only annotation.

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 tight sentence with the key (slug) and payload (fields) front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical field list is informative rather than filler.

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 one-param read tool with no output schema, the description gives a rough sense of the returned record but omits error behavior for an invalid slug and any note on where slugs come from. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and there is one required parameter, so the description must carry the load. It identifies the parameter's nature ('slug') but adds no format, example, or source guidance (e.g., where to get a valid slug), leaving the schema's bare 'type: string' largely unenriched.

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 retrieval action ('full record for one course') plus the lookup key ('by slug'), which clearly distinguishes it from search_courses (plural, list) and get_booking_link (different resource). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrase 'by slug' hints that a slug must first be obtained (presumably from search_courses), but the description never says this or explains when to prefer this tool over the sibling lookup.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that: unknown fee/location courses are excluded only when the relevant filter is set, live availability is not checked, and `date` is echoed back with booking-window notes.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with scope and value, followed by filter behavior and the availability caveat. No sentence is filler and each adds a distinct constraint.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering permissions, the description carries most of the load and does it well for a 7-param search: scope, optionality, exclusion rules, and the availability caveat are all stated. The undocumented proximity and limit params keep it just short of 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?

Schema coverage is only 43% (limit, near_lat, near_lng, radius_mi are undocumented). The description clarifies `date` as informational/echoed and explains the unknown-fee exclusion rule that governs max_fee, but says nothing about the proximity trio or limit, so it only partially compensates.

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+resource ('Search public golf courses') plus scope ('currently NYC metro') and the differentiating payload (official tee-time booking links). It doesn't explicitly name siblings get_course/get_booking_link, but the search-vs-get distinction is inferable from the verb and result 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?

'Filters are optional' tells the agent all parameters can be omitted, and 'Does not check live tee-time availability' is an explicit when-not. It never routes the agent to get_course or get_booking_link for detail/booking, which is the remaining gap.

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