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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable context: earnings are absent for DP World Tour and LIV, season points exist only for FedEx Cup/PGA Tour, playoffs are included, and the call costs 2 credits. Credit cost and league-conditional data availability are exactly the traits annotations cannot express.

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 use case, then a dense but purposeful enumeration, closing with the cost sentence. Every clause carries information, though the long field list overlaps somewhat with the existing output schema and could be trimmed without loss.

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 present, the description needn't document return shapes; it still covers the use case, league-dependent data caveats, and cost. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for the `league` parameter by explaining which output fields vary by league (earnings for DPWT/LIV, points for PGA). It says nothing extra about `limit` or `tournament_id`, which the schema already documents.

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 ('use for a tournament's results') and enumerates the exact resource contents: full field in finishing order with position, status, score to par, strokes, per-round detail, earnings and season points. The 'every player in the field' scope implicitly separates it from single-player siblings like get_scorecard and get_player_results.

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 a tournament's results' gives a clear triggering context, and the enumerated contents signal the full-field use case. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it (e.g. single-player lookups), so it falls short of a 5.

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