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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses data provenance and freshness ('supplied live by the independent DiscGolfAPI service', 'EDGA does not own or control these records'), which signals the records are third-party and may change. It does not, however, describe rate limits, error/empty-result behavior, or result pagination behavior beyond what the schema's offset/limit already imply.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the two search modes stated up front. The provenance sentence is justified for a third-party data source, though it is slightly more attribution context than strictly needed for tool selection.

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 nine-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the request side adequately but says nothing about what is returned (result fields, ordering, distance values for coordinate searches, or how offset/limit interact with has-more results). The gap is real, though most of the input complexity is absorbed by a fully documented schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including filter semantics like null exclusion for is_free and is_18_holes and the pairing requirement for latitude/longitude. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 concrete verb and resource ('Searches public course records') and goes further by naming the two distinct operating modes: keyword matching against recorded names/localities and nearest-course lookup from coordinates. No sibling tool performs course search, so the purpose is unambiguous against get_edga_tour, get_governance_policy, and the guidance/framework tools.

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 makes the when-to-use conditions clear by distinguishing a keyword/locality search from a coordinate-based nearest search, which tells the agent which parameter family to populate. It stops short of explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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