get_strokes_gained

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses a key nuance: 'estimated_share > 0 means some shots lacked GPS and used inferred lies/distances — hedge conclusions accordingly,' which is valuable for interpreting results. It also explains how the 'auto' baseline leverages the player's handicap. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other safety aspects, though that is less critical for a get operation.

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 tool's purpose and output breakdown. It packs essential details about baseline selection and the estimated_share caveat without redundancy. Every clause adds value, and the structure is clear: purpose → baseline options → data quality warning.

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, return values are likely covered there. The description covers the metric breakdown, baseline semantics, and a data quality warning. However, it leaves unclear how 'round_id' and 'last_n_rounds' interact (e.g., precedence) and what the default behavior is when neither is provided. This ambiguity reduces completeness for an agent needing to select and invoke the tool 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'baseline' parameter, listing all allowed values and meanings. However, it does not explain 'round_id' or 'last_n_rounds' — their semantics, defaults, and interaction (e.g., priority when both are provided) remain ambiguous. This gap is significant given the low schema coverage.

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 'Strokes Gained (Broadie method) per round: total plus off-tee / approach / short-game / putting,' which clearly states the tool's purpose and output breakdown. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_club_stats or get_performance_stats by focusing specifically on strokes gained metrics.

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 strokes gained analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_round or get_shots. It explains baseline options and the estimated_share caveat, but lacks direct when/when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools.

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