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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it explains the gating behavior of unlockCode (prices hidden without it, retail/settlement/profit fields added with it) and the shape of the response (English natural-language text, pagination preserved). It stops short of noting freshness/caching or error behavior for a bad code.

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?

Purpose and product scope are front-loaded, and the unlock-code caveat follows logically. The prose is dense and slightly repetitive about what the code unlocks, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return payload (natural-language text, sources/conditions/pagination preserved) and the price-field structure. Given four optional parameters and an open-world read, the definition is complete enough to call correctly, though error/empty-result behavior is unspecified.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by spelling out what the unlock code reveals per product and what each category value maps to in the product catalog. Query and locale semantics are left largely to the schema.

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 verb+resource (One U Education's service price list for partner agents) and enumerates exactly which products it covers: visa applications, school applications, short courses and extras. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fee-lookup tools by stating these are service fees only, with government/third-party fees excluded.

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?

Clear context for use: partner agents retrieving One U Education pricing, with the unlock code only passed when the user supplied it in-conversation. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. get_visa_fees) or state when-not to use it, but the fee-scope sentence implicitly routes government-fee questions elsewhere.

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