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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool does and returns, but does not mention behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the search is real-time or cached. For a search tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional, resulting in a 3.

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: first sentence states purpose and scope, second lists output fields. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or fluff. This efficiency earns a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields (scholarship name, country, amount, etc.). It covers the database size, target audience, all filter criteria, and output details. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this is fully complete, earning a 5.

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 schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The tool description adds context about the database size and target audience but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is earned.

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 searches a specific database (StudiePoint's) of 200+ full-ride and 100+ full-tuition scholarships for African postgraduate students. It uses precise verbs and resource identification, and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like get_scholarship (single record retrieval) and match_scholarships (matching algorithm), earning a 5.

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 makes it obvious this tool is for searching/filtering scholarships by various criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when to use convert_gpa or estimate_study_costs instead), lacking 'when-not' guidance. The context is clear but not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.

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