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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful content details like grouping courses by state, but it doesn't describe edge cases, error behavior, or response format. This is similar to the TDQS baseline where annotations carry the burden.

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 purpose, then a compact list of return contents, followed by a clear input instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the specific fields returned (bio, image, years, nationality, courses grouped by state). It also covers input options. It lacks details on failure modes or pagination, but for a read-only lookup tool this is largely complete.

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?

The schema fully documents both parameters with examples, but the description adds the key semantic that you should provide 'either' the name or slug—implying mutual exclusivity and that at least one is expected. This goes beyond the schema's 'required: 0' and clarifies usage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('details about a golf course architect'), then enumerates the exact contents (bio, Wikipedia image, birth/death years, nationality, courses by state). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like get_course and get_reviews by focusing on the architect entity.

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 description implies the use case: when you need architect details, this is the tool. It also provides invocation guidance ('Provide either the architect name or URL slug'), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool targets architects, this is acceptable.

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