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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network behavior are covered. The description adds only the season-scoping trait; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether the current season is returned when the year is omitted (that detail lives only in the 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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the disambiguation second, with no redundant text. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. Combined with a single required enum-like parameter and one clear sibling contrast, the description gives an agent enough to call correctly; only scheduling cadence and pagination remain unstated.

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%, and the schema already enumerates the valid tour keys and explains the optional season default. The description repeats the 'one season' idea without adding format or semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Fetch) plus resource (Yahoo Sports golf tour tournament schedule) and explicit scope (one season). It names the sibling it is not (yahoo_sports_golf_leaderboard), so an agent can distinguish the schedule angle from the standings angle, though it does not address other golf siblings like yahoo_sports_golf_player or yahoo_sports_golf_players.

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 second sentence explicitly routes tournament-standings requests to yahoo_sports_golf_leaderboard, giving a clear when-to-use-elsewhere rule. It stops short of stating prerequisites or exclusions beyond that single contrast.

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