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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note: it returns none rather than erroring when no policies exist for the build. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which matters given the limit/offset parameters.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded in a question form, and zero filler. The phrasing is slightly unusual but still compact and readable.

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?

For a simple parameterized lookup with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly, including the empty-result behavior. Return-shape detail is unnecessary without an output schema, though result structure for pagination is left implicit.

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 limit, offset, unitid and query are all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the filtering behavior of the query parameter without adding format or syntax detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource (academic policies published by an institution) and gives concrete examples (transfer credit, prior learning, tuition and fees), which clearly separates it from the singular sibling get_policy. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage via 'Optional words narrow them,' telling the agent the query parameter filters results, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative such as get_policy for fetching a single policy.

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