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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the tool as a 'look up' of public facts, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, error handling, authentication needs, or what happens if the scholarship is not found. It does list the output fields, giving some transparency, but lacks depth on behavioral edge cases.

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 states the purpose and lists the facts, the second redirects to a private workflow for other needs. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place with no 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the returned fields and clarifies scope. It lacks mention of not-found behavior or auth, but for a simple lookup, these are likely not critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'named scholarship', which clarifies that the 'name' parameter expects a specific scholarship name rather than a broader keyword, even though the schema says 'name or search keyword'. This slight clarification adds value beyond the schema.

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: 'Look up essential public facts about a named scholarship' and lists the specific fields (host country, programme, eligible fields, amount, deadline, minimum GPA, official link). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_scholarships or match_scholarships.

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 points to a separate private workflow for coaching and planning, but does not contrast with the sibling MCP tools (search/match). It implies usage for a named scholarship lookup, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. discovery tools. It is not misleading, but could be more explicit.

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