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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations lack: the exact per-call cost ($0.005 USDC) and the x402 payment mechanism, which an agent must know before invoking. It still omits how matching works or what a failure/empty result looks like.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and source before listing fields, with the cost appended as a second clause. No filler, though the field enumeration is dense and the pricing could be its own sentence.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, which does real work. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage, the critical omission is parameter meaning — an agent cannot tell whether 'name' is required-and-exact or fuzzy, nor what 'limit' defaults to.

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 only 33% — 'name' and 'limit' have no schema descriptions at all, only 'state' does. The description never compensates, discussing only returned data fields rather than what name must contain, what limit controls, or how state filters results.

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 names a specific resource (US college facts) and its authoritative source (Department of Education College Scorecard), then enumerates the exact data fields returned — admission rate, tuition, net price, graduation/retention, earnings, debt. It is unmistakable against the sibling list, which contains no other college-data tool, though it never states an explicit retrieval verb.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no note that 'name' is a college/institution name, and no indication of how the state and limit parameters interact with results. The only contextual instruction is the per-call price, which addresses payment rather than usage.

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