hole_problem_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful domain semantics by defining 'blow-up' as 2+ strokes over par, which is genuinely beyond the structured fields, but it says nothing about filtering behavior or result ranking beyond the title.

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, front-loaded with the core output and followed by a definition the reader needs to interpret the reported counts. Nothing is wasted and the term definition 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage context, an agent cannot tell how to scope the report (which course, how many rounds minimum) or when this beats sibling analytic 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 description coverage is 0% for four parameters (top_n, course, layout, min_rounds), so the description carries the full burden of explaining them and explains none. Parameter names are partly self-evident, but there is no statement of what course/layout filter on or how min_rounds thresholds the ranking.

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 resource and metric set: holes ranked by total strokes over par, with average and blow-up counts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like scoring_distribution or course_stats, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives offered. The second sentence defines 'blow-up' (terminology) rather than telling the agent when this report is the right choice over course_stats or scoring_trends.

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