get_tees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the tool as a read operation ('Get') and mentions the ODbL license. However, it does not specify error behavior (e.g., invalid course_id) or any constraints beyond licensing.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose and data fields, plus licensing notice.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks details about return format (e.g., array of tee objects) and error handling. For a tool with no output schema, more insight into response structure would be beneficial.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a description ('Course UUID'). The tool description adds context by tying the parameter to the course, but does not enhance semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'all tee sets for a course' with explicit details on included fields (ratings, slopes, yardages). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_course which likely returns course-level info.

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 implicitly indicates usage for retrieving tee set data given a course ID. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are given, but the purpose is straightforward and unambiguous.

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