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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld=false. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the recorded open/closure flag is explicitly not a live confirmation of seasonal opening or tee-time availability, which prevents a plausible misinterpretation. It also scopes geographic coverage.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the return payload, then the caveat and coverage. The field enumeration is long but each item carries retrieval value given the absence of an output schema; there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it adds the caveat about closure status versus live availability. Nothing an agent needs to select and call this tool correctly appears to be 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%, so the single 'slug' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a light restatement (canonical URL or slug) and no format or syntax detail beyond it, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get full details for a specific golf course) and names the exact key input (a returned Stymie URL or slug). It then enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it clearly from search_courses and find_nearby_courses that produce the slug in the first place.

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 schema and description tie the input to the output of search_courses, find_nearby_courses, and build_golf_trip, which implicitly routes the agent through the correct call order. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_scorecard or when not to use it.

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