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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and idempotent, and the description adds important non-obvious behavior: live tee-time inventory is not returned, and the result is instead a Stymie course page plus an alert early-access list. This goes well beyond what the annotations cover and sets accurate expectations for the response.

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 short sentences carry the full message: the action, the critical caveat, and the return value. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool returns and its central limitation. It could add a bit more about what the alert early-access list contains, but that gap does not prevent correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents slug, date, and players.

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 and resource: it searches for tee times at a golf course, and immediately clarifies that it does not return live inventory. This makes the core purpose clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools like search_courses or get_course.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are named. The note about live inventory being unavailable is a useful expectation-setting caveat, but it doesn't help an agent decide between this tool and search_courses, get_course, or find_nearby_courses.

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