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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful piece of non-structured information: the call costs 2 credits. Beyond that it says nothing about error behavior, missing-cut players, or data availability.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the use case before listing returned fields. The output enumeration is long but each clause (par, yards, result, out/in, strokes vs field) tells the agent something about match quality; minor tightening is possible.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return structure, yet it briefly does so to aid selection. With two required params fully documented in the schema, the cost note, and the safety profile in 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%, with all three parameters documented including the league enum default and id sources (get_leaderboard, list_tournaments). The description only implies player_id and tournament_id via 'one player's tournament hole by hole' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb-plus-resource: retrieves one player's hole-by-hole scorecard for a tournament, and enumerates exactly what comes back (per-hole strokes, par, yards, result, course, out/in, strokes vs field). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_leaderboard or get_player_results, which do not go hole by hole.

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 opening 'Use for one player's tournament hole by hole' sets a clear usage context and scopes it to a single player in a single tournament. It does not name an alternative (e.g., get_leaderboard for field-wide standings) or state when not to use it, 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.