DiscGolfAPI MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing what happens when no courses are found, how results are ordered, whether distances are included, or any rate limiting. This is a significant gap for a read-only query tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention the return format, result ordering, distance units, error handling, or any edge cases like empty results. An agent would need to guess or call the tool blindly to understand its full behavior.

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 all four parameters (latitude, longitude, radius_km, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond echoing the 'radius' and 'coordinates' concept, which does not elevate above the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('disc golf courses') with a specific scoping ('within a specified radius of given coordinates'). It conveys the tool's function distinctly from the sibling tools (e.g., search_courses likely handles name-based search), though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_courses or get_course. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer when proximity-based search is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' explicitly signals a read-only operation, and 'detailed information' hints at the richness of the response. It does not mention permissions or error behavior, but for a simple retrieval these are not critical gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the input scope.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient: an agent knows what to pass and that the result will be detailed. It doesn't describe error cases or edge conditions, but these are not essential for a straightforward get-by-ID operation.

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?

The schema already documents the 'id' parameter as a canonical identifier or alias, and the description merely echoes this ('by its unique ID or alias') without adding new meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 the specific verb 'retrieve' and names the resource 'disc golf course', making the action and target unambiguous. It also clarifies the selection method (by unique ID or alias), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like search_courses and find_courses_near.

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 clearly implies that this tool is used when you have a specific course ID or alias, providing the necessary context for selection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier of explicit routing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully indicates that results include change type and timestamps and that the operation is a discovery/read action. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or the exact shape of the returned course list.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource, the recency scope, and the key output metadata efficiently.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies what is returned and the distinguishing update metadata. The main gaps are the lack of explicit sort-order/pagination details and no output schema, but the low complexity keeps these from being critical.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description loosely aligns 'added or updated' with the change_type enum but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Discover') and a specific resource ('recently added or updated disc golf courses'), and mentions the output traits of change type and timestamps. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools in focus, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want recent course additions or modifications. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling like search_courses or find_courses_near would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool searches, with no information about result ordering, filter combination behavior, pagination, or any limitations. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not stated.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it remains easy to parse.

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?

The schema documents all 11 parameters well, but the description is thin for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain how filters combine, what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to find_courses_near, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description's list of searchable criteria adds a high-level summary but does not clarify how the boolean feature filters map to 'hole count' or 'features' beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Search') and identifies the resource ('disc golf courses') plus the main search dimensions. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool find_courses_near.

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 about when to use the tool: when searching by name, city, country, region, hole count, or features. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer find_courses_near for location-based searches.

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