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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds real context: pagination behavior via next_offset, conditional presence of version_count/source_count/first_edition_seen/last_edition_seen only for multi-form or multi-source records, and the fact that records from older editions are flagged. The provenance rule that source_url/capture_file/catalog_year belong to a single form's source, not the whole record, is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the prose is dense and clause-heavy, with a long digression on conditional fields and an awkward statement about records that 'read exactly as it always has'. Several sentences could be tightened or moved to field documentation without losing 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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned shape, pagination, provenance semantics, and conditional-field rules well. What it lacks is a clear statement of where the forms live (it gestures at 'the one-record get' without naming a sibling) and any error/not-found behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the default/max on limit and the meaning of unitid and code. The description restates the filter scope (filters apply to the courses, not the framework) but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema says. Baseline 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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates its payload: the framework row, authority, codes with meanings, and the mapped courses, paginated. It clearly differs from the list sibling find_transfer_frameworks. The one blemish is the clause 'the forms themselves ... come from the one-record get, never from a list', which is confusing since this tool *is* a one-record get, leaving the agent unsure whether forms are here or elsewhere.

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 states how to narrow results ('Narrow the courses to one school (unitid) or one framework code (code)') and how to page ('more pages carry next_offset'), and it implies forms should be fetched elsewhere. But it never explicitly says when to call this versus siblings like find_transfer_frameworks or get_program, and the redirect for forms points at an unnamed tool.

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