get_club_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that putts and penalties are excluded, details the metrics (avg/min/max/stddev, sample size, usage share, lateral miss bias from dx offsets), and mentions Garmin's own averages and advice distances. It stops short of stating side effects, but this is clearly a read-only statistics tool.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists the included metrics and caveats. Every clause adds value, with zero fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It thoroughly covers the tool's scope, data sources, and exclusions, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema only defines last_n_rounds with a default, and the description enriches this by explaining 'over the last N rounds,' making the parameter's meaning clear. It doesn't specify the exact parameter name, but the correspondence is obvious.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Per-club performance over the last N rounds' with a detailed list of metrics. It is specific about the resource (club performance) and the action (getting stats), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_performance_stats or get_shots by focusing on club-level aggregates.

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?

The description implies clear usage context: when you need per-club aggregate statistics over a rolling number of rounds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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