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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that steps come only from agreement/pathway documents (never assembled from award levels), that every input is marked counted/not-counted/needs-review with nothing dropped silently, and that missing inputs are named rather than invisibly penalised. These are non-obvious guarantees that add real value beyond the safety hint.

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?

Roughly five sentences, mostly front-loaded by the framing question and the goal/inputs clause. It is dense but each sentence carries content; the rhetorical opener is mildly stylistic but does establish purpose quickly.

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 an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, yet it usefully explains the ranking transparency and gap-handling semantics an agent needs to interpret results. Combined with the readOnly annotation, the definition is close to complete, missing only explicit routing to sibling tools.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning to the 'held' input by enumerating what a person brings (courses, exams, Competency Selfie, work and life experience) beyond the schema's terse 'shape will_my_credits_transfer takes'. The remaining params are already fully documented in 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns ranked paths toward a goal (major or job) given what the person brings, and it explains the ranking rationale. It is clearly a personalized-ranking tool, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling find_pathways, so sibling differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the goal-plus-inputs framing ('For a goal... and what the person brings'), which tells the agent when this is relevant. However there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named (e.g., find_pathways vs. get_pathway), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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