get_golf_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the start=0/limit=100 defaults, validation rules that throw GarminError, the hyphenated query-param naming (per-page, start), and most importantly the live-verified claim that the payload is a pagination-envelope OBJECT rather than an array. That return-shape disclosure is genuinely useful given 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?

The body is a single dense semicolon-chained sentence that leads with defaults rather than purpose, followed by a bolded return-shape note. There is no padding, but the structure is a wall of detail with no front-loaded statement of what the tool is, so it reads as unordered facts rather than a guided definition.

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 correctly shoulders the return-value burden by disclosing the pagination envelope shape, and it covers defaults and validation. But for a read-only open-world tool it omits purpose, sibling differentiation, and pagination traversal guidance, so an agent can call it but cannot confidently decide it is the right tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real meaning: defaults, non-negative start validation, positive limit validation, and the mapping to Garmin's hyphenated query names. However it still leaves the core semantics ambiguous (is start a row offset or a page number?) and never explains limit's relationship to per-page. Useful but incomplete against a total coverage gap.

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 never states what the tool does. It opens with defaults and validation and reveals the return shape, but there is no explicit verb+resource statement of purpose, and no differentiation from golf siblings like get_golf_user_stats, get_golf_club_stats, or get_golf_scorecard. The agent must infer intent entirely from the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative golf tools. The text covers defaults and validation but leaves scenario selection completely to inference.

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