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). The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('likely faults from a fixed ball-flight table and the PocketCaddie drills for each, as cards') and the deterministic fixed-table behavior, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 trigger condition, then the mapping instruction, then the return value. The example utterance list is long but each example exercises a different fault signature, so it earns its place; a slightly tighter list would lose nothing.

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 no output schema and a mostly-optional parameter set, the description still covers trigger, input mapping, omission behavior, and return format. Minor gap: it says nothing about the left_handed flag, leaving the agent to discover that from the schema.

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 75% and each enum already lists its values, including the contact vocabulary. The description adds the key semantic instruction — translate the golfer's phrasing into start/curve/contact and omit dimensions they did not mention — which is mapping guidance the schema cannot express.

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 and resource (map a golfer's description of ball flight to likely swing faults) and grounds it in concrete example utterances. It is clearly a diagnosis tool, distinct from the sibling drill-retrieval tools (get_drill, search_drills).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when a golfer describes what the ball does... without naming the swing fault') plus a concrete list of example phrasings, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name a sibling alternative for the case where the fault IS named, so the exclusion is only implied.

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