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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes a safe read, and the description adds real context beyond it: the response content (a recommended tool/page plus contact details) and a privacy constraint ('Do not include personal information'). It does not disclose rate limits, what happens to out-of-scope questions, or whether contact details are always present.

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?

Three short sentences, all earning their place: capability, return value, and the privacy constraint. The fallback scope is front-loaded ahead of the output description, so an agent gets the routing decision first.

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?

For a read-only routing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and the key constraint on input content. Minor gaps remain around out-of-scope behavior and how the optional askedFor parameter affects results, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 50%: askedFor is documented via its enum, but the required 'question' parameter carries only min/max length with no description. The phrase 'in plain words' does convey that question is free-form natural language, which adds some value, but the description never addresses the askedFor dimension or the 500-char limit.

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?

States a specific verb (Ask) and resource (TutorPing / tutor / student questions) and explicitly scopes it against siblings with 'that the other tools don't cover.' It also names the output ('which TutorPing tool or page fits, plus contact details'), so an agent can distinguish this fallback-router from search_tutors or get_tutor without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'that the other tools don't cover' gives a clear when-to-use condition relative to the sibling set, and 'in plain words' tells the agent this is the natural-language entry point. It stops short of naming a specific alternative (e.g. 'use search_tutors for browsing'), so the routing is implied rather than fully explicit.

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