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

Annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: data is source-attributed, published by councils or schools, and free without sign-in until a specific date.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the access condition. There is no redundant wording.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description reasonably covers what comes back, including source attribution and catchment context. It does not explain result structure or how multiple entry years are organized, which would be helpful without an output schema.

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% and school_id is fully documented with examples. The description reinforces that the lookup is for one school but does not add format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: every published last distance offered for one school, plus the council catchment or priority area. It clearly differs from area-level tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings such as get_area or get_school.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one school' and the mention of entry year and intake, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative comparison against get_school, get_area, or search_near_postcode.

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