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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the explicit cost of 5 credits and the shape of what comes back (finishes, rounds, strokes versus the field, summary).

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-loaded with the usage signal in a single dense sentence, then the cost. No filler, though the nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 and fully described parameters, the description only needs the mode selection and cost, both of which are present. It does not say what happens if neither tournament_id nor course_id is supplied, a small remaining gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by framing tournament_id and course_id as two alternative look-up modes and clarifying that any edition's tournament_id works, which helps the agent pick the right parameter rather than both.

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 resource (a player's record at one tournament across years, or at one course across tournaments) with the exact parameters that select each mode. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_player_results or get_course, which cover single-context results rather than a cross-year history.

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?

'Use for course or event form' plus the parenthetical instructions on which id to pass give concrete, actionable selection guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when not to use it, so it is a clear 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.