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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the search functionality and does not disclose result ordering, pagination behavior, how filters combine, or that this is a read-only 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core capability while leaving parameter details to the schema.

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 11 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain whether the query is required, how filters interact, what the returned results look like, or when an agent should choose this tool over its siblings.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters in detail. The description's list of searchable fields adds no new meaning beyond what each parameter description already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('search') and a specific resource ('disc golf courses'), and lists the search dimensions (name, city, country, region, hole count, features). It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the criteria clearly distinguish it from location-based 'find_courses_near' and single-record 'get_course'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion conditions. While 'search' implies a query scenario, the description leaves the agent to infer when to prefer this over find_courses_near or get_course.

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