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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'thru and today while live' signals partial in-progress data, cut/withdrawn statuses indicate non-uniform row semantics, and 'holes=true ... (large)' warns that the response can balloon in size.

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 dense sentence with a semicolon is front-loaded on the payload contents and ends with the optional expansion flag. It is efficient, though the comma-list enumeration makes it heavy to parse at a glance.

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, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly. It does not cover pagination, auth, or freshness beyond 'while live', but for a read-only lookup keyed by tournament_id it is nearly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the holes flag by specifying that it yields hole-by-hole scores and that the payload is large — useful cost/benefit information the schema does not convey.

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 names a specific resource (a golf tournament's leaderboard) and enumerates exactly what it contains (position, to par, strokes per round, thru/today, earnings, cut/withdrawn, per-player stats), which clearly separates it from get_golf_tournaments and get_golf_player in the sibling list. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' but the resource-and-payload framing 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives. The only routing signal (tournament_id comes from get_golf_tournaments) lives in the input schema, not the description.

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