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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description is not needed for safety. It adds real value instead by disclosing the payload shape for team formats (board.standing.sides with per-side handicap, holes and total; board.party.catalog for counting/allowance) and the problem codes 'need_sides' and 'need_allowance', which tell the agent how to interpret incomplete groups.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose leads, followed by format-specific return detail and the default-party rule. The parenthetical format list and the two-line problem-code clause are justified, though the run-on structure makes it harder to scan than a bulleted form would be.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so for both individual and team formats, including error-like state flags and the shareable scoreboard link. It stops short of describing pagination or full response envelope, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 parameter's description already states the omit-for-current-round default, so the description adds little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 names a concrete resource and verb: live status of a player's group game, listing standings by format (stableford, skins, match), holes played per player, the marker, and the public scoreboard link. That is far more specific than the title alone and lets an agent tell it apart from round-card or competition tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The only usage rule given is the default behavior when party_id is omitted (the game of the round currently in play), which is genuinely useful context. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as get_round_card or get_team_competition, and no exclusions.

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