get_shots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains filtering options and the geojson output format, but does not mention default limit (500), read-only nature, or behavior when no filters are applied. The 'get' verb implies safety but not explicitly.

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: the first defines the core purpose and filters, the second explains the geojson output and use case. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (6 optional params) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, filters, and output format. It misses a few behavioral details like limit defaults and explicit differentiation from siblings, but is adequate for most use cases.

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 round_id, holes, club (substring match), shot_type (with allowed values), and format (geojson meaning). However, limit is only visible in schema, and no defaults or optionality are mentioned, leaving a small gap.

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 opens with 'Get shot-level data' and enumerates specific data fields (GPS, club, lie, distance, miss offsets), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_round or get_club_stats. The filterable dimensions are also listed, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 provides context for when to use the tool ('ideal for shot maps and dashboards') and implies use for granular shot analysis. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is a minor gap given the sibling tools.

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