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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low, and the description instead adds genuinely useful semantic context: the values are per-round averages rather than totals, and sg_putting is benchmarked against 2 putts per hole rather than scratch, so a positive number is not a putting strength. That caveat is exactly the kind of interpretive warning the schema and annotations cannot carry. It doesn't cover data preconditions (e.g. needing shot-level rounds) but is well above adequate.

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?

Front-loaded with the metric definition, then usage triggers, then the caveat — a sensible order with little waste. The heavy capitalization and long em-dash chains make it slightly harder to parse than necessary, but every clause carries real content.

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 does the work of describing the return shape: average strokes gained per round, split long game vs putt, plus a per-round breakdown. Combined with the baseline caveat, an agent can both select and interpret it; only the data-availability precondition is left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and additionalProperties is false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words re-explaining an empty 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Strokes Gained del jugador') and pins the scope tightly: anchored to the player's own scorecard, averaged per round, split into long game vs putt with a per-round breakdown. What's missing is sibling differentiation — the claim 'es la única fuente que separa de verdad las áreas del juego' arguably collides with the existing sibling get_strokes_gained_by_area rather than pointing the agent to it.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasings ('¿dónde pierdo golpes?', '¿qué área me cuesta?', '¿es el putt o el largo?') and an explicit 'ÚSALA SIEMPRE' directive, which is strong positive routing. It stops short of exclusions: it never says when to prefer get_strokes_gained_by_area or get_round_insights instead, which is the main ambiguity for an agent picking among ~80 siblings.

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