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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses two high-value facts: no API key required, and a paid usage model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged). This is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs before calling. It doesn't add rate limits or pagination behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the data source and returned fields, then adds scope limit and pricing. Three tight sentences with little waste, though the field enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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 an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description fills in the remaining essentials: data scope, no-key auth, and cost model. Complete enough to call correctly.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented (1–50, default 10) in the schema. The description adds no further parameter 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?

States a specific verb (search), a specific resource (OWGR men's golf ranking) and enumerates returned fields (position, name, country, points, average, last week). Clearly distinguishes itself from the ranking siblings (FIFA, World Rugby, Leiden, etc.) by naming the exact data source and its scope.

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?

Establishes scope clearly with 'current ranking only; no tour or event history', which tells the agent when this tool applies and implicitly when not to use it. It does not name an explicit alternative, so it falls just short of the top band.

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