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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context on top: the error-on-no-match behavior, that results include eligibility gates, expiry, claim steps, application status, last-verified time, apply links, and up to 3 alternative programs. With no output schema, this return-content disclosure is exactly the burden the description should carry.

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?

One front-loaded paragraph that opens with the outcome, then routing, then return payload — no filler sentences. The return-field enumeration is long, but with no output schema each item is doing work; slight trimming of the parenthetical apply-link detail would tighten it.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers routing, fallback behavior, error case, and returned fields. The one gap is that both parameters are optional and it never states what a zero-argument or both-arguments call does, which an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: the slug provenance (details_url) and the precedence rule that name is the fallback "when no slug is known", with realistic example values. It stops short of saying what happens if both are supplied, so not a 5.

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 and resource ("Return the full terms of one startup program") and immediately contrasts with the sibling list/search tools that produce the identifier it consumes. An agent can distinguish it from find_startup_perks and search_startup_perks 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?

Gives explicit routing rules: call after find_startup_perks/search_startup_perks with the slug from details_url, or use a name when the user asks about a single program, with a concrete example query. It also names the recovery path ("Returns an error when nothing matches; search_startup_perks can then find the program"), which is a when-not condition plus alternative.

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