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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields ('name, location, type, holes...') and the geographic coverage, which an agent could use to decide if this tool answers its need. No hidden side effects or contradictions are present.

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 short sentences: purpose, return payload, coverage. Each sentence adds distinct information and the main action is front-loaded, so there is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly: it identifies input provenance, lists output fields, and states supported regions. No missing information is required for a successful invocation.

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 single 'slug' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source tools, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only that the slug is 'returned' and complements the schema's 'Paste' instruction, but doesn't introduce new parameter semantics beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific golf course'), clearly distinguishing it from search-oriented siblings by requiring a 'returned Stymie URL or slug' rather than a query. It also enumerates the returned content, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 and schema state that the input must be a URL or slug returned by search_courses, find_nearby_courses, or build_golf_trip, which clearly tells agents when this tool is appropriate: once a specific course identifier has been obtained. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives in the description, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternative statement.

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