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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which is surprising for a tool named 'Check' and suggests it persists a result or audit record. The description never discloses that side effect, nor whether repeated checks create duplicate records, so it leaves a real behavioral question unanswered and mildly conflicts with the read-only framing implied by 'Check'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is as much under-specification as conciseness in places.

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?

With no output schema and only a pointer-style body description, the agent gets no information about what a check returns (pass/fail, per-subject breakdown, reasons) or what inputs must be assembled first. For a validation tool in a large catalog this leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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?

There is a single 'body' parameter whose schema description is nominally present (100% coverage) but only defers to an external OpenAPI resource. The description adds nothing about the shape of the body — how grades, subjects, or the offer are expressed — so it does not compensate for a contract that is documented elsewhere.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it checks whether an applicant's grades and subjects satisfy an offer. That clearly separates it from alevel_catalogue, but it doesn't distinguish itself from other '*_check' tools in the catalog or state the domain boundary explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no prerequisite (e.g. needing an offer reference from alevel_catalogue first), no condition under which the check applies, and no named alternative. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name alone.

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