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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only" in the description is redundant. The one piece of genuinely additive context is "from the same services as their space", hinting the figures match what the user sees in-app, but there is no disclosure of what happens if a provider has no synced data or whether results are cached/stale.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the routing rules. No filler, though the semicolon-chained alternative list makes the second sentence slightly dense to parse on a first read.

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 is the only place return-shape could be conveyed, and it stops at "answer from the report's figures" without saying whether a report is a structured set of numbers, a rendered document, or possibly empty for a provider with no synced rounds. For a simple single-param read tool that is a tolerable gap, but it leaves the agent guessing about what it will actually receive.

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 provider enum already spells out both values, so the schema carries the load. The description aligns its wording with those two values (RFEG handicap report, Garmin rounds report) but adds no format, freshness, or fallback guidance beyond what the enum descriptions state. 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?

"Read the data behind one of the player's ready-made reports" names a specific verb (read) and resource (report data), and immediately enumerates the two variants (RFEG handicap, Garmin rounds). It also separates itself from report_link and the TrackMan tools in the same breath, so an agent can pick it without opening the 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?

Explicit routing: use this to answer from the report's figures, use report_link to share as a link, and use get_trackman_range / list_trackman_sessions for TrackMan data. That is a when-to-use plus named alternatives for the adjacent cases, which is exactly what the guidelines dimension rewards.

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