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

The description adds process details beyond annotations, such as matching real tee yardage and slope data and balancing fit vs. travel distance. It also discloses a limitation (separate verification required), which is valuable behavioral context. No contradiction with read-only annotations.

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 description is only two sentences long and communicates the core function efficiently. However, words like 'transparent' and 'fit' are vague and could be replaced with more concrete terms without adding length.

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 complex tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level understanding but omits return value details and parameter semantics. It adequately sets expectations for planning but leaves critical usage gaps.

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 0%, and the description only vaguely mentions location types (city, ZIP, coordinate) and course count. It does not explain the 10 parameters, their constraints, or how to combine them, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool builds a one- to four-course public-access golf trip based on a location, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on trip construction rather than course discovery, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides an explicit boundary: tee-time availability and drive times must be verified separately. This tells the user what the tool does not do, offering clear context for when to use it. It lacks named alternatives but the guidance is useful.

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