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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches the description. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond the output format, so it meets the baseline without adding substantial context.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and output. It is concise and efficient, though it could be slightly rephrased for clarity without adding length.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (per-dimension tier deltas and a paragraph). It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but misses minor details like how to interpret 'tiers'.

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 only 33% (lang has description, but a and b are undocumented). The description adds meaning by specifying '2 universities' and the output, but it doesn't clarify what a and b represent (e.g., university IDs or names).

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 it compares two universities on specific dimensions (BrightKey's 6 dimensions). The verb 'compare' and resource 'universities' are precise, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'match_schools' or 'get_university_profile' by focusing on pairwise comparison with detailed output.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for detailed comparison but lacks guidance on when not to use it.

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