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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so extensively. It discloses conditional output fields (version_count, source_count, first_edition_seen, last_edition_seen), explains when they appear, and clarifies that forms and sources are returned here rather than in a list.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the remaining text is dense, jargon-heavy, and wordier than necessary. The conditional-field details are useful, though they could be compressed and structured more cleanly.

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 explain return values, and it does so thoroughly: core fields, conditional fields, source attribution, and older-edition behavior are all covered. It still lacks some operational context such as error behavior, but for a read-only one-record get it is largely complete.

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 the single framework_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from find_transfer_frameworks. The prose adds no extra parameter syntax, constraints, or formatting guidance beyond that baseline.

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 a single transfer framework and lists what it returns (row, authority, codes, mapped courses), which is specific enough to separate it from list-style siblings. However, it relies on the name/title for the action verb and does not explicitly name find_transfer_frameworks as the companion tool.

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 only implied: the parameter description says the id comes from find_transfer_frameworks, and the prose says forms come from the one-record get, never a list. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not-to-use alternative comparison.

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