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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description's added behavior details are valuable beyond them: it specifies the full payload and the coverage limitation ('thousands of courses with scorecard data'). No contradiction exists.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the core function and contents, the second adds a relevant coverage qualifier. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented parameter and a clear enumeration of return contents, the description is complete. The lack of an output schema is not a gap because the description explicitly describes what the scorecard contains.

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%, and the schema already fully explains the slug parameter, including accepted inputs like canonical URLs and reusable slugs from sibling tools. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' plus a specific resource ('full scorecard for a golf course') and enumerates the exact contents: tee sets, hole-by-hole par, yardage, stroke index, and ratings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_course or get_architect.

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 gives clear context by defining the returned data and noting that availability depends on courses having scorecard data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the distinct data scope makes the intended use unambiguous.

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