Compares two calendar years of disc golf rounds, showing rounds played, average score vs par, best and worst rounds, and the change between seasons. Optionally filter by course.
Compare two calendar years: rounds, average score vs par, best/worst round and the change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course | No | ||
| year_a | Yes | ||
| year_b | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which aggregates are computed, but says nothing about edge cases such as a year with no rounds, how 'change' is calculated, or how the optional course scoping affects results.
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?
A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the output metrics listed after the colon. No 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?
With no output schema, the metric list partially substitutes for return-value documentation, which is helpful. But the unexplained 'course' parameter and undefined direction of 'the change' leave gaps an agent needs to resolve before calling confidently.
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 carry parameter meaning and largely doesn't. It implies year_a/year_b ('two calendar years') but never explains the optional 'course' parameter, which materially scopes the comparison, nor which year is the baseline for 'the change'.
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?
States a specific verb (compare) and resource (two calendar years) and enumerates the metrics produced: rounds, average score vs par, best/worst round, and the change. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't name a sibling (e.g. scoring_trends) to distinguish itself from multi-year trend tooling.
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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for year-over-year comparison, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among siblings like scoring_trends or course_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.