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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the endpoint is public, returns natural-language text preserving sources, conditions and pagination, and carries an explicit eligibility disclaimer. The 'returns English natural-language text' phrasing sits awkwardly against a locale param that defaults to zh-CN, which slightly muddies the behavioral picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then features, disclaimer and routing in a compact sequence. Each sentence carries a distinct piece of information, though the public-endpoint/natural-language sentence is the least clear and could be tightened.

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 usefully names returned content (courses, tuition, URLs) and mentions pagination. For a paginated list endpoint with a required occupation plus locale, this is nearly complete; it could say more about how paging interacts with the occupation scope.

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 50%: locale and occupation are documented in the schema, page and pageSize are not. The description's only contribution is 'Supports page and pageSize,' which restates the param names without adding format, default or range semantics, and it never addresses the occupation parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource and scope: 'Published courses linked to one occupation, with tuition and course URLs.' It distinguishes itself from get_course explicitly ('Use get_course for course details') and from other occupation tools by scoping to courses, so an agent can select it without opening a sibling 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?

Provides a clear routing rule to a specific alternative ('Use get_course for course details') and a scope caveat (not a guarantee of registration, skills assessment or visa eligibility). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over search_courses or get_occupation_visas, so it is context-rich but not exhaustive about alternatives.

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