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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real context beyond that: it is a public endpoint, the output is English natural-language text, and sources, conditions, and pagination are preserved. It does not say whether an empty result is possible or how many advisors are typically returned, keeping it below 5.

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 the site-panel analogy, with the trigger condition and parameter hint following in logical order. The parenthetical enumerating returned fields and contact channels makes the middle clause dense but it is informative rather than filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: it names the fields returned, the contact channel per language (WeChat Work for Chinese, WhatsApp for English), the topic-based 'recommended' ordering, and pagination/source preservation. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool.

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% and all four enums are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-level addition is that passing topic and studentLocation surfaces site-recommended advisors first, which the schema's topic property already states in nearly identical words. No new syntax, format, or default semantics are contributed.

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+resource ('One U Education's advisors') and anchors identity to a concrete artifact the user knows (the 'talk to an advisor' panel on www.oneuedu.com). It also enumerates what each record carries (name, office, organisation, QEAC number, focus, contact channel), which cleanly separates it from the data-lookup siblings like get_rto or search_courses.

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?

'Use it when the user wants to talk to a person, a consultant or a specialist' gives a clear trigger condition, and 'Pass topic, and studentLocation for study topics' gives routing guidance. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. for course/visa data lookups), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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