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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the claims are drafts for the person to affirm or decline, the AI never affirms a claim, and nothing is stored because the package is returned to the agent. This richly explains the read-only and non-committal nature of the operation without contradicting the annotation.

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?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. The main action and prerequisite are front-loaded in the first sentence, the draft/affirmation behavior in the second, and the school hint and storage behavior in the third. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the output schema, and the annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the required input source, the output destination, the optional school's purpose, the no-storage guarantee, and the relationship to sibling tools. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaningful context for the required package parameter by specifying it comes after my_selfie_ksa_view. It also explains why the optional school should be supplied (to ready the catalog for suggestions), though the schema already covers much of this; language and aspiration are left to 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Draft the credit claims a person's evidence supports, from their package.' It clearly distinguishes this from the upstream my_selfie_ksa_view and downstream suggest_credit_for_my_learning by positioning itself between them, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 explicit context for when to call the tool: after my_selfie_ksa_view, and before suggest_credit_for_my_learning when the school is supplied. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5, but the workflow context is clear.

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