datagolf_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the exact return structure and the auth requirement (DATAGOLF_KEY), which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

The description is very concise, consisting of a clear purpose sentence, a return format example, and a brief auth note. Every line contributes necessary information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, return format, auth requirements, and implicitly the optional nature of parameters through the schema and annotations. Given the simple two-parameter read-only design, this is fully complete.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema ('tour' with enum values, 'file_format' as response format), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add further parameter-specific detail, so it remains at the baseline for high coverage.

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 states 'Tour schedule — the season's events with dates, courses and locations.' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the schedule of golf tour events. It also includes the return format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like datagolf_rankings or datagolf_pre_tournament.

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 description provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving the current season's tour schedule with dates, courses, and locations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to select this tool.

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