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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (none) and specifies behavior (returns categories, probability, percentiles; operates for one school or ranked list). It does not state side effects (implicitly none), but the tool's read-only nature is evident from its purpose.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with no superfluous words. It efficiently covers purpose, scope, and auth in under 30 words.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, authentication, and outputs, which is sufficient given the schema's rich parameter coverage. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention how parameters combine (e.g., ATAR vs GPA), but the schema handles this, so the description is adequately complete.

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 mentions "GPA and test score" but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., ATAR vs GPA, program-specific test ranges). It does not clarify ambiguities or add syntax/format guidance.

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 function: "calculate match category (Safety/Target/Reach/Far Reach), admission probability, and percentiles" for "one school or a ranked list." It specifies the verb (calculate), resource (match score), and outputs, distinguishing it from siblings like search_schools or compare_to_applicants.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (given GPA/test score) and explicitly notes "Public — no authentication required," which signals accessibility. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., compare_to_applicants) or mention when not to use it, leaving some implicit guidance.

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