get_performance_stats

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 thoroughly describes the output metrics and mentions the optional benchmark_handicap, but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., behavior when insufficient rounds exist) or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation, which is implied but not stated.

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 dense but avoids extraneous words, fitting a wealth of metric detail into two sentences. The structure is slightly run-on with a long list, but every clause contributes meaning and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists and covers return structure, the description focuses on metric scope and is quite complete. The main gap is the missing explanation of the category parameter, but the metric list maps naturally to the enum values, making the tool usable without explicit parameter documentation.

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 explains benchmark_handicap explicitly and last_n_rounds via 'last N rounds', but category is only indirectly implied through the metric list and is not directly described. Partial compensation, with a notable gap for the category parameter.

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 PGA-style performance stats over a specified number of rounds, with a detailed enumeration of metrics. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_club_stats (per-club data) or get_strokes_gained (single metric), though the distinction is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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 usage for comprehensive performance analysis and offers an optional benchmark comparison, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_club_stats or get_strokes_gained. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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