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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses substantive behavior: it refuses when the rule is unconfirmed, never guesses, and explains the special FINRA Regulatory Element case where measure is 'assigned' with no hour total. It also notes aggregate returns for IWI and American College keys, which an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the opening sentence is a dense run-on and the designation list is long, making it harder to scan. It earns its length but could be broken into shorter statements.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (hours, minimums, cycle, carryover, sources, open questions), how aliases resolve, and the one behavioral edge case. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description materially deepens the single 'designation' parameter by listing accepted values, alias keys (IWI, American College), special values (IAR, FINRA, MQP), and their differing return semantics. That goes beyond the schema's terse enumeration.

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 states a specific verb+resource (returns the CE rule for one designation) and enumerates exactly what the rule includes: hours/credits per cycle, category minimums, cycle setup, carryover, source URL, quote and date checked. It also differentiates from siblings by pointing to iar_ce_state for single-state queries and naming FINRA/MQP behavior.

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?

It gives clear context and one explicit alternative ('use iar_ce_state for one state'), plus a when-not rule ('Refuses when the rule is not confirmed; never guesses'). It does not compare against ce_calculate or compliance_deadlines, so routing between the CE-related siblings is only partially covered.

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