get_golf_shot_data

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

With only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint in annotations, the description goes well beyond the safety profile: it discloses the underlying GET path, the separator normalization (commas/hyphens accepted, spaces stripped, re-joined with '-'), and the critical quirk that any requested hole number >9 silently drops the filter and returns all 18 holes. That silent-failure disclosure is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and the holeNumbers example are front-loaded, and every clause carries real information — the endpoint path is the only near-decorative element. The back half is a dense run-on with parenthetical asides and bold, but the density is justified by the edge cases it encodes.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description ideally would say something about what 'shot data' contains (club, distance, accuracy, etc.); it only names the resource. Everything an agent needs to construct a correct request, including the silent filter-drop trap, is present, so the gap is limited to return-shape expectations.

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 50% and holeNumbers has no schema description at all, so the description carries the burden and does so thoroughly: accepted formats ('1,2,3'), separator flexibility, normalization behavior, and the >9 coercion rule. scorecardId is left as a plain numeric id, but it is trivial and already annotated 'Numeric id' in the schema.

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 a specific resource and scope: 'Shot data for a scorecard, optionally for some holes only', which is a concrete verb+resource pair an agent can act on. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_golf_scorecard or get_golf_club_stats, though it never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 context is implied rather than stated: passing holeNumbers narrows the fetch, omitting it fetches all 18. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_golf_scorecard or the other golf siblings, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing scorecardId). Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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