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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered by structured data. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing the contents returned (plans, free sample day, full document-id list, sister sites), which is the only source of return-value information since no output schema exists.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the subject (what CourtWatch measures) before the list of included content. Slightly list-heavy but every clause names concrete content the caller receives.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only info tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned sections, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it for orientation. Only the lack of explicit routing guidance keeps it below a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 3 applies; no parameter-level meaning is needed or added.

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?

The description names a concrete resource (CourtWatch data about pickleball and padel clubs) and enumerates what the payload covers: plans, free sample day, document ids, sister sites. It is clearly an orientation/about endpoint and is distinguishable from a fetch or search tool, though it never states a verb ("returns" or "describes") explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: mentioning "every document id" hints that this is a discovery/entry point before calling fetch, but the description never says when to call it versus search or fetch, nor any preconditions or exclusions. An agent can infer the role but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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