get_round

Does 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 only the identifier format and ambiguity fallback, which is parameter guidance rather than behavior; it says nothing about return size or pagination. A 3 is appropriate given annotations carry the behavioral burden.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the output scope front-loaded and the identifier guidance immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (hole-by-hole scores) and how to build the input. It stops short of describing the return shape beyond the one-line summary, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 for the lone parameter and it does: it specifies the 'YYYY-MM-DD HHMM' format and the date-only fallback when unambiguous. It does not explain how to disambiguate an ambiguous date, which keeps it from a 5.

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 (retrieves) and resource (hole-by-hole scores for one round), which naturally distinguishes it from list_rounds (lists rounds, not scores) and throw_stats/course_stats (aggregates). It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the singular-round scope makes the boundary inferable.

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?

Points the agent at list_rounds as the source for round_id, establishing the intended workflow chain. It also notes a fallback (a plain date if unambiguous). No explicit when-not guidance is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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