get_course_intel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses notable behavior: name substring match for course selection, and the specific stats returned. While it doesn't mention read-only nature or data freshness, it's clear this is an analysis/query tool. The description adds value beyond what annotations would provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately providing concrete details and a usage example. Every word earns its place, 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. The description covers the key behavioral aspects: scope, matching, and intended use case. It could mention prerequisites like having synced data, but this is not a critical omission given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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. It clarifies that 'course' uses name substring matching, adding meaning to that parameter. However, 'last_n_rounds' is not mentioned, though its purpose is fairly inferable from its name and default value. The compensation is partial, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 provides 'personal course intelligence for one course' with specific outputs (scoring average vs par, hardest/easiest holes, tee club per hole, round history). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_club_stats and get_performance_stats by focusing on per-course analysis. The verb 'get' and resource 'course intel' are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit example of when to use it: 'Use for strategy questions like "how should I play X next time?"' This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, 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.