course_stats

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: course is a substring match, and include_holes materially inflates the result size for multi-layout courses. This output-volume disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the caveat trailing. No filler; the parenthetical about substring matching is load-bearing.

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 usefully enumerates the returned statistics, and it explains the substring-match behavior of the required parameter. The gap is the undefined 'layout' parameter and the absence of any routing guidance against the many sibling stats tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain 'course' (substring match) and 'include_holes' (adds per-hole averages, long for multi-layout courses), but 'layout' is never defined in either the schema or the description, leaving one of three parameters opaque.

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 names a specific verb (compute stats) and resource (a course), and enumerates the concrete outputs: average/best/worst rounds, per-layout stats, and top-3 best/worst holes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like throw_stats or scoring_trends, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling stats tools (throw_stats, scoring_distribution, hole_problem_report). The only usage-adjacent information is the note that include_holes produces a long list for multi-layout courses, which is a caveat rather than guidance.

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