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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that by disclosing the mode-switch (name search returns a match list without ratings, a single match auto-returns detail) and enumerating the returned tee attributes and holes, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing ordering, result limits or empty-match behavior, so a 4 rather than 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?

The payload content and the sibling routing are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (catalog scope, name mode, course_id mode, tee-relative metrics, alternative tool). Sentences are long and run together, but nothing is redundant.

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 takes on the burden of describing return values and does so for both modes, including the tee-relative caveat that slope or hole meters belong to the tee the player plays. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret it, with only minor gaps around result counts and no-match handling.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: `name` is a partial text search that can yield multiple courses and deliberately omits ratings, while `course_id` is exact and triggers the full tee-and-hole payload. That clarifies the consequence of choosing each parameter rather than just restating the field descriptions.

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+resource (retrieve catalog course info) and then breaks down the two modes exactly: with `name` it returns matching course fields without ratings, and with `course_id` it returns tees (color, slope, course rating, par, meters) plus holes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_course_profile, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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 an explicit routing rule: if the player names a course, use get_course_profile (short card per course and tee); this tool is for course_ids and tee_ids of a round. It also states the mode-selection condition (single name match falls through to full detail), covering both when-to-use and which parameter selects which behavior.

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