scoring_distribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the inclusive date-range convention and the shape of grouped output, which is useful context. It says nothing about course/layout filtering effects or result volume, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the parameter conventions. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler. Slightly dense first sentence but well-structured overall.

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 not be described, and the bucket list plus grouping explanation covers the main behavior. The gap is the undocumented course/layout filters, which an agent would have to infer. Adequate but with a clear hole for a 5-param 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 carries the load, and it does explain start/end format/inclusivity and group_by semantics. However, course and layout (two of five params) are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. Partial compensation for the coverage gap, not full.

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 opening sentence states a specific computed resource: the share of holes falling into each scoring bucket (eagle+, birdie, par, bogey, double, triple+). An agent can tell this is an aggregate scoring-outcome breakdown, distinct from a trend or comparison tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby scoring_trends/compare_seasons siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance and no alternative named. The only routing-like hint is the group_by behavior ('omitted for one overall row, or month or season'), which is parameter semantics rather than tool-selection guidance. An agent gets no signal on when to pick this over 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.