golfcourseapi_course

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial value by disclosing the unverified nature of the response shape, explaining the male/female tee split, and clarifying that 'handicap' means stroke index, not a player handicap. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 fairly long but well-structured with a purpose statement, return shape, caveats, example, and auth note. Every part contributes meaningful information, though the 'Example: One course in full' section is slightly redundant and could be trimmed.

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, the description provides a detailed return shape including the nested structure and field meanings. It also includes a reliability caveat and auth requirement. The description is reasonably complete for a single-course detail endpoint, though location subfields are left as '…' and error behavior is not mentioned.

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 100% and the schema already explains that 'id' is required and comes from golfcourseapi_search. The description adds only a trivial example ({"id": 1}) without new semantic insight into the parameter, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource: a single course with full tee box details including per-hole par, yardage, and stroke index. The phrase 'One course in full' distinguishes it from the sibling golfcourseapi_search, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve'.

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 implied rather than stated: the description indicates this returns full details for one course, so an agent can infer it should be used after obtaining a course ID (likely from golfcourseapi_search). However, no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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