list_rounds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies newest-first ordering, compact summary fields, date format (YYYY-MM-DD), and case-insensitive substring matching for course. It does not mention limit behavior or pagination, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 three short, informative sentences. The first sentence gives the core action and output format, the second clarifies parameter conventions, and the third points to an alternative tool. No filler or repetition exists.

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 description covers the core list behavior, output format, and key matching rules, and explicitly points to get_round for detailed data. With an output schema present, return values are covered. It could explicitly state that start_date and end_date filter rounds, but overall it is sufficient for safe use.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's added meaning is valuable: course is a case-insensitive substring, and dates use YYYY-MM-DD. However, it does not explain how start_date and end_date filter results, nor what limit does, leaving some parameters under-specified.

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 action ('List'), resource ('golf rounds'), and scope ('newest first, as compact summaries'), and lists the fields included. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_round tool by explicitly noting that get_round provides hole-by-hole detail.

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 explicitly directs users to get_round for hole-by-hole detail, signaling when not to use this tool. It also sets expectations for date format and course matching, providing clear context for when to use this list versus other golf analytics tools.

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