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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the ranking is derived from tee data, access types matter, private access must be disclosed, and results must be linked via the returned URL.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and constraints following. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence packs several directives together.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (course name, access type, measured value, canonical Stymie URL). For a simple 3-parameter read tool, this is close to complete; only limit/pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by defining what the category enum values actually mean (hardest = highest slope, easiest = lowest slope among public/municipal, longest = maximum yardage), which the terse schema enum descriptions do not.

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 (rank) and resource (courses in a state) plus the data basis (published tee data). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_courses and find_nearby_courses, which list or locate rather than rank.

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?

Defines the ranking semantics for each category and explicitly states the negative scope: 'not quality ratings or current booking availability'. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling for when the agent wants non-ranking course lists.

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