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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior detail by naming the returned fields (status, campus, term, dorm details if claimed, pickup readiness) and the conditional 'if claimed' caveat — useful given there is no output schema.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first states the operation and its return payload, the second supplies the user-intent triggers. No redundancy or filler.

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 fields and notes the conditional dorm-details case, which is the main unknown for an agent. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for an invalid or unknown code, but nothing essential to calling it 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the code format and case-insensitivity. The description restates the FSP-XXXXXX pattern but adds no syntax, validation, or edge-case detail beyond it, 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 ('Look up a Fold Semester Pass by code') and enumerates what the response contains. It is clearly a read/lookup operation, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is distinct from (e.g. activate_semester_pass or buy_semester_pass).

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?

The description gives concrete triggers in the form of example user questions ('is my pass active yet?', 'what's the status of FSP-XXXXXX?'), which gives clear usage context. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over activate_semester_pass or buy_semester_pass.

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