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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the output is advisory, includes source links, evidence dates and verification limits, and that numerical buffers, budgets and case-study claims are not an authoritative safety standard. That epistemic framing is exactly the kind of context an agent needs, though it never states explicitly that the call is a read-only operation.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat second. Every clause carries information, though the list of caveats ('buffers, budgets and case-study claims') is slightly dense.

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 retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content (source links, evidence dates, verification limits) and a critical trust limitation. An agent knows what it gets and how far to trust it; only the read-only nature and sibling routing are 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 description coverage is 100% with enums on three of four parameters, so every parameter is already documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. how hole_count or landowner_type shape the returned guidance), so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('advisory EDGA course planning guidance') with a clear scope modifier ('advisory'). It is distinguishable from retrieval siblings like get_governance_policy, though it does not draw an explicit line against the closely related get_club_starter_guidance.

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 never states when to use this tool versus the alternatives (get_club_starter_guidance, get_governance_policy, search_courses). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'guidance'.

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