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

With only readOnlyHint=true from annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses that an empty result means 'none held', that each row names its own source, and that version_count/source_count/first_edition_seen/last_edition_seen appear only for multi-form or multi-source records, plus that records from retired editions are flagged. These are substantive behavioral traits beyond the safety annotation, though the phrasing is hard to parse.

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 summary is front-loaded with the core question, but the paragraph is long and contains convoluted, near-redundant clauses ('reads exactly as it always has', 'one sentence saying so in words') that slow parsing without adding decision-relevant content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return shape, and it does: rows, source attribution fields, conditional version/source fields, and the retired-edition flag. Combined with full schema coverage for inputs, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, despite the awkward prose.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema (limit default 20/max 100, offset = next_offset, unitid = IPEDS UNITID). The description adds only the query narrowing hint, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening question ('Which academic policies does this institution publish...') plus the field list (transfer credit, prior learning, tuition and fees) names a specific resource and scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular 'one-record get' for individual forms, though it never names the sibling (get_policy) outright, so differentiation is only inferable.

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?

'Optional words narrow them' tells the agent how to filter, and 'The forms themselves... come from the one-record get, never from a list' routes the agent away from this tool for per-form detail. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, and the routing sentence is buried mid-paragraph.

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