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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the credit cost and clarifying that hole stats are aggregated from every round on the course; it does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before giving the multi-course conditional and credit cost. It is efficient overall, though the course_id note duplicates schema text and the opening phrase 'Use for a course' is slightly less direct than a verb-first formulation.

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 full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema available, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly: data scope, the course_id condition, and cost. It could be more complete by clarifying its relationship to get_course_history, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 three parameters, including the multi-course condition for course_id. The description repeats that course_id condition but adds little beyond the schema, such as no meaningful detail on league or tournament_id semantics, so the 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?

The description clearly states the resource and scope: course setup for a tournament (par, yards per hole) plus per-hole performance stats from every round. It is specific about what data is returned, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_course_history, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear usage context (course as set up for a tournament) and a conditional instruction: pass course_id when the tournament uses more than one course. It does not state when not to use this tool or name an alternative sibling, so it is not a full 5.

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