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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds real substance beyond that by disclosing what the sheet contains (how it is played, who plays which ball on each shot, WHS handicap allocation, FAQ cases like ball out of bounds/lost before and after selection, provisional, order of play, scorecard) and by disclosing the fallback behavior for non-modalities.

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 purpose and coverage claim come first, but the opening sentence is a dense run-on that stacks rule citations (R&A 3, 6, 18, 21, 22, 23; Committee Procedures section 9; WHS Appendix C; RFEG) and roughly twenty format names into one block. The enumeration aids matching, but the sourcing citations do not help an agent select or invoke the tool and dilute the actionable guidance.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is close to self-sufficient: it covers what the tool returns, when to call it, the non-modality fallback, and the free-text nature of the format input. Only the boundary with dedicated rule-lookup siblings is left unaddressed.

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 fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only restates that 'format' is the modality as the player says it in any language, adding a compound example ('greensome chapman'), and repeats that language is the player's language with Spanish as the default — no handling of ambiguous or unknown modality strings is described.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns a sourced reference sheet ('Ficha con fuente') for a competition modality, and it enumerates the covered formats (foursome, greensome, Chapman/Pinehurst, fourball, scramble, Stableford variants, medal, match play). It also explicitly separates itself from sibling explore_game_format by declaring that app game formats (Vegas, Wolf, Nassau, Skins) are not modalities, and that in that case it returns the app's '¿Cómo se juega?' sheet.

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 gives a strong, imperative when-to-use rule: 'Úsala SIEMPRE antes de explicar una modalidad o de resolver una duda de reglas propia de ella,' plus the exact redirect to explain_game_format for app scoring games. What is missing is any routing against the rules-focused siblings (get_rule, search_rules) when the question is a pure rule lookup rather than a format question.

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