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

Annotations already mark this as read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies what the returned bundle contains, including resolution status for source and substitute courses. This helps an agent anticipate output shape.

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 one sentence and reasonably brief, but phrases like 'credits awarded published beside any parse' and 'stated unresolved' are awkward and reduce clarity. It earns points for brevity but loses for obscure phrasing.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful overview of the returned bundle. However, it omits what 'parse' refers to and does not explain the practical context of when this result is meaningful. Still, it is mostly adequate.

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 single parameter comparability_id is fully documented in the schema with a source hint ('from find_comparability'). The description adds no additional parameter detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource as one comparability bundle and lists its main contents: the credits row, receiving institution, and source/substitute courses. This separates it from find_comparability by implying a singular fetch, though the wording is indirect and somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus find_comparability or other sibling tools. The singular 'one comparability bundle' weakly implies retrieval by ID, but there is no stated alternative or exclusion.

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