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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the content is country-specific and must be relayed verbatim with a disclaimer that the tool does not itself determine acceptance.

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, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the key usage instruction. No filler, though the opening clause is slightly awkwardly worded.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists so return format need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the verbatim-output instruction and scope caveat — ample for an agent to call and use 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% for the single 'country' parameter, including the code format and the US default, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only echoes 'for a country' and adds no new parameter-level detail; 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?

The description states precisely what content is returned: pre-authored wording, scoped by country, addressing employer acceptance of online-course certificates. That is clearly distinct from the sibling course-retrieval tools, though the verb is only implied ('give the person this wording') rather than stated as a crisp action.

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?

It gives a clear directive on how to use the output ('give the person this wording as it is') plus a caveat that acceptance is decided by the employer/licensing body. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but context is sufficient for this narrow tool.

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