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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: this dataset contains no ball flight, so the agent must refuse to produce distance or direction figures — a constraint the annotations cannot express. Return shape is sketched but volume/pagination behavior is not.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is, then the trigger conditions, then the hard limitation. Every clause carries information (granularity, metrics, misses) and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and their granularity (per day, per club, tempo, ball result, common misses) and flags the missing ball-flight dimension. Only minor gaps remain, such as the default 30-day window, which the schema already covers.

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% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema (1–90, default 30). The description adds no extra meaning about the lookback window, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3 applies.

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: the user's home net practice swings recorded via the app's «Contra una red» mode, broken down per day and per club, with swing count, measured tempo, self-reported ball result and top misses. That level of detail separates it cleanly from siblings like get_swing_practice, get_practice_progress or get_trackman_range without opening their schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers: talk of training at home, in a net or in the garden, or questions about practice without a course. It also states a hard usage limit — never report distances or directions from these swings — but does not name which sibling to use instead when the user actually wants range or on-course shot data.

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