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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully restates 'Read-only' as confirmation rather than contradiction. Beyond that it discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: that averages omit outliers outside 70-130% of each batch's median carry, that 'shots' is the counted-shot total, and that a one-year per-club summary is returned. It does not mention the default page size or ordering, but the outlier-averaging rule is exactly the kind of context an agent would otherwise misreport.

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 core identity and the sibling routing are front-loaded and nothing is padded, but the first sentence is a long run-on packing in source list, filters, metrics and summary. It is dense rather than rambling, so 4 rather than a clean 5.

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 return-value burden and does so: it names the session sources, the metrics averaged (carry, total, ball and club speed, spin, smash, launch), the per-club one-year summary, and the outlier handling behind those averages. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it and to describe its results accurately.

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 all three parameters (limit, since, club_type) carry their own descriptions with bounds and formats, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that filtering works 'by club and date', which effectively maps to club_type and since but gives no additional semantics, and 'limit' is left entirely to the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List the launch monitor sessions kept in Badgie') and immediately enumerates what those sessions are: linked TrackMan report imports plus CSV exports of Garmin, Rapsodo, SkyTrak and others. It also distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings by name, so an agent can separate it from get_trackman_range and import_launch_monitor_csv without opening a 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 states both when-not-to-use and the alternative: 'For sessions in the player's own TrackMan account use get_trackman_range; to add a CSV, import_launch_monitor_csv.' That routes the agent correctly across the three overlapping session tools, and the 'filterable by club and date' note shows the intended filtering use case.

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