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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavior: the 8-result cap, CRICOS rather than quality sorting, the international-student filter, the state/campus gating rule, and that no-candidate does not relax criteria. It omits return shape details, but for an annotation-covered read tool this is well above baseline.

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 candidate definition and state rule are front-loaded, which is good, but the text is telegraphic and the line 'No candidate does not trigger relaxation' is a confusing double negative that costs more than it conveys.

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 does note the return format ('English natural-language text, preserving sources, conditions and pagination'), which is helpful. Still missing are the semantics of the required course parameter and a clearer explanation of the relaxation behavior, leaving an agent under-informed on inputs.

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 33% (only locale is documented), so the description carries more burden. It compensates for state with the nationwide/eligibility rules, but leaves course entirely unexplained beyond the schema's minLength, and adds nothing to the already-documented locale.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource and pins down the candidate set ('up to 8 same-qualification/same-narrow candidates, open to international students, sorted by CRICOS'), which separates it from siblings like search_courses and get_course_pathways. However, 'same-qualification/same-narrow' is domain jargon and the description never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit.

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?

'Omit state for nationwide' and the state-eligibility rule give usable context for the state parameter. But there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool instead of get_course_pathways or search_courses, so usage is only implied.

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