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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the payload ('codes with their meanings', courses 'resolved'), hinting at expansion of codes/relationships, but it does not clarify what 'resolved' means operationally or how missing/unmapped data is handled.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the returned components. Slightly fragmentary phrasing ('its row') costs a point but there is no wasted text.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description should fully convey the return shape; it does so at a high level (authority, codes, mapped courses) but leaves 'row' and 'resolved' undefined, so an agent has a rough but not complete picture.

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 single framework_id parameter and its origin are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and enumerates the returned contents (row, authority, codes with meanings, mapped courses), which lets an agent distinguish it from the list-oriented sibling find_transfer_frameworks. It does not explicitly state the verb, but the get-by-id intent is unmistakable from the schema.

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 implied: fetch one framework, and the schema's framework_id description points to find_transfer_frameworks as the source of ids. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, nor a statement of prerequisites, so guidance is only inferred.

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