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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned content (scale, Group of Eight flag, entry requirements, campuses, intakes, average offer time, ready-made courses search url) and by flagging that a URL slug is acceptable input. No rate limits or error behavior are mentioned, but none are expected here.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and identifier format, followed by the routing hint. The field enumeration is long but each item is informational rather than filler; slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers both accepted input shapes plus multilingual output via the locale schema. A note on what happens for an unknown/invalid code is the only notable omission.

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 schema fully documents both 'school' and 'locale' including the enum and default. The description echoes the CRICOS example and the URL alternative but adds no semantics the schema lacks, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Details of an Australian education provider'), names the identifier type (CRICOS provider code) with a concrete example, and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish this from get_course, get_occupation and the search_* siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the follow-on case: 'Use search_courses with schoolCode to list its courses,' which tells the agent this tool is for provider-level detail, not course lists. It also documents the two acceptable input forms (code or school URL). It stops short of any when-not guidance or comparison against get_course/get_occupation.

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