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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: output is Persian (fa-IR, RTL) verbatim text, contains no prices, and is sourced from public fekrestan.com pages — all facts an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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 short sentences with the content (cost sentence + contact page) front-loaded, followed by output characteristics and exclusions. Wording like 'The site's own fixed sentence' is slightly awkward but each sentence carries information, so no trimming is clearly warranted.

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 zero-parameter static-read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what content comes back, its language and direction, and what is excluded. Nothing essential to correct invocation is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema leaves no ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource concretely: the site's fixed cost sentence (verbatim, no prices) plus the contact page, returned as Persian text. It is clearly a read of static informational content, distinguishable from siblings like get_how_to_solve or get_exam_prep_overview, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_site_overview.

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?

Audience is stated ('for parents and teachers') and one exclusion is given ('No answers to in-app exercises'), which implicitly routes exercise questions to other tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement versus its closest siblings such as get_site_overview or how_to_start.

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