golfcourseapi_search

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which already signal safe read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it warns that the response shape is from vendor docs and unverified, advises inspecting the actual payload, and notes the auth key requirement—key behavioral caveats that an agent needs before relying on the response.

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 compact and efficiently organized: one-line purpose, return shape, caveat about unverified shape, example, and auth note. Every sentence earns its place and provides essential operational info without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single required param, simple search semantics), the description covers all key aspects: purpose, return shape, limitations, example, and auth. The explicit caveat about unverified vendor shape is crucial for a tool without a live key, and the pointer to golfcourseapi_course completes the necessary context.

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% (only one param, search_query, described as 'Course or club name'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds a concrete example ('Pebble Beach') and further explains the parameter semantics ('name or club'), which supplements the schema without needing to restate everything. Baseline of 3 applies, but the example and the name/club clarification add modest value.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Search the course catalogue') with clear scope (by name or club), and explicitly differentiates from sibling golfcourseapi_course by noting this returns summary only while per-hole data needs the sibling. The verb+resource+scope combination is precise.

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 explicitly says when to use it (to search summary info) and when not to (per-hole data needs golfcourseapi_course), effectively naming the alternative tool. It also provides an example call and notes the auth requirement (GOLFCOURSE_API_KEY), giving clear contextual guidance.

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