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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context: the response is scoped to a single link plus status and 'nothing else', and it gives a routing/priority instruction. It does not detail the status field values, but with an output schema present that is acceptable.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then sibling disambiguation. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers scope, usage, prioritization, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the country parameter is fully documented with examples and a pointer to list_tracks. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond telling the agent which country's source to retrieve, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: returns only the official government link and status for one country, explicitly noting it returns 'nothing else'. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_track_info and get_sample_questions.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when the user asks where to verify requirements or find official study material') and names alternatives for adjacent needs ('for test format use get_track_info; for practice material use get_sample_questions'). Also gives a preference rule: prefer this over third-party sites.

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