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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, and the description adds a useful behavioral edge case: 'Answers nothing when the build holds none.' It does not describe the shape of results or pagination, but it adds some value beyond 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 succinct and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a useful boundary condition. The misleading 'curriculum language' phrase costs it a top score.

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 does not fully define the result shape beyond 'which comparability bundles are held,' and the confusing filter reference leaves the agent unsure about valid parameters. It is adequate for a basic read-only list/find tool but not complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 is expected, but the description introduces 'curriculum language,' which is not a schema property, instead of faithfully representing the agreement filter. It also leaves unclear whether the optional filters are exclusive or combinable, which creates ambiguity for agent invocation.

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 clearly identifies the resource as comparability bundles and the operation as finding which ones are held, even including the edge case of returning none. It is unambiguous about the subject, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_comparability.

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 offers optional filtering hints, but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_comparability or will_my_credits_transfer. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' framing, leaving tool selection to inference.

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