Search Rakuten GORA Golf Courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's behavioral burden is lower. The description adds context: it returns specific fields and includes a reservation calendar URL. No contradictions. It provides extra context beyond annotations, such as the return format (name, address, etc.).

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 succinct, with one paragraph in English and one in Japanese. It front-loads the key verbs and resources, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 7 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input options, output fields, and points to the sibling tool for more detail. This is complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions. The tool description only mentions the search criteria types (area code, keyword, coordinates) but adds no new parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 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's purpose: 'Search Rakuten GORA golf courses' by area code, keyword, or coordinates. It lists returned fields (name, address, etc.) and differentiates from sibling tool gora_golf_course_detail, which provides full details. This is a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 says to use gora_golf_course_detail for full information, providing a clear alternative. It implies this tool is for summary search results. Although it doesn't state exact when-not-to-use scenarios, the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to choose between tools.

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