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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral load and does add real value: it discloses conditional output (version_count, source_count, first_edition_seen, last_edition_seen appear only for multi-form/multi-source records), that single-form records 'read exactly as they always has', and that stale older-edition records are retained. It stops short of stating auth needs or pagination behavior.

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 middle sentences earn their place by explaining conditional fields and source scoping, but the prose is convoluted and contains flourishes that hurt rather than aid parsing ('one sentence saying so in words', 'reads exactly as it always has'). It is not front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information.

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 the return shape and largely does so, covering the bundle's parts, per-row source attribution, and the conditional field set. That is a substantial compensating effort for a tool with no output schema, though a few field meanings remain vague.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the comparability_id fully; the description adds only the implicit provenance (find_comparability). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 and resource ('One comparability bundle') and enumerates what the bundle contains: its row, the receiving institution, and its source and substitute courses. It also explicitly differentiates from list-shaped siblings ('The forms themselves ... come from the one-record get, never from a list'). The dense, idiosyncratic phrasing slightly obscures the core purpose but the resource is identifiable.

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 schema-plus-description pairing implies the id comes from find_comparability, and the description draws a boundary against list tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative beyond the implicit reference to 'the one-record get', so usage is only implied.

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