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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the data source (OpenStreetMap), approximate coverage (about 2,800 courses), and what each match includes. It could be richer about matching behavior or result limits, but it provides substantial operational context for a search tool.

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 definition is two tight sentences with the core action, scope, source, and return value front-loaded. The use-case examples are efficiently packed at the end without unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the data source, searchable fields, return fields, and when to use it. No critical calling information 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented with examples such as "Harrogate" and "Oakdale." The description says the query may be a course name or town, but that does not add meaning beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches every UK golf course by name or town and returns matches with town, nation, and a GolfPrice AI course page link. The scope and return content make it clearly distinguishable from sibling price, society, and handicap tools.

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 explicitly lists good use cases such as "golf courses in Harrogate" and "is there a golf course called X," which gives the agent clear triggering contexts. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like search_golf_prices for price-focused queries.

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