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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, the description adds domain-specific behavior: LPGA coverage is schedule-only with no leaderboards, and the leader/winner field is the only leaderboard-adjacent data. It does not cover pagination behavior, but the schema handles that. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences/fragments, front-loaded with the core resource and return fields, then the key constraint, then the alternative tool. Every part earns its place with no redundant padding.

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 7-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description lists the return fields and clarifies LPGA limitations, which is important. It omits any mention of default season or pagination defaults, but those are covered by the schema. The description is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by date' which is already captured by date_from and date_to. It does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 the resource (golf tournaments) and scope (PGA Tour and LPGA, by date) and lists key return fields (course, location, purse, status, leader/winner). It distinguishes from get_standings by naming it for the season money list, but does not explicitly name get_golf_leaderboard as the full leaderboard tool, leaving minor ambiguity about that sibling.

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?

It provides a clear alternative for a related task: the season money list is retrieved via get_standings with sport golf. It also notes that leaderboards exist for the PGA Tour only, which guides expectations. However, it does not state when-not to use this tool versus get_golf_leaderboard, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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