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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for beyond-annotation facts: history is frozen to each calculation's inputs and is not rewritten by later fact edits, and cursor values must be reused unchanged. It says nothing about ordering, result size, or what the summaries contain beyond the output schema's coverage.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the recovery mode and the immutability/auth notes. Dense but each clause adds information; no filler or restatement of the title beyond the first clause.

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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers auth requirements (authenticated One U Education account plus declared planning scope, credentials never arguments), immutability semantics, and pagination discipline. Missing only ordering/limit behavior, which an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the cursor reuse contract (though under the name 'next_cursor' while the schema calls it 'cursor') and clarifies that request_id is an exact-match recovery key; dossier_id is implied by 'this dossier's'. The 'limit' parameter and its 1–100 bounds are never touched, so compensation is partial.

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 — 'List this dossier's saved calculation summaries' — plus a secondary mode, 'recover a submission by exact request_id'. It is distinguishable from get_planning_calculation by the word 'summaries', but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives two implied usage modes (list summaries for a dossier, retrieve one submission by exact request_id), which is real guidance. However it never states when to prefer the full-detail getter over this list, nor any exclusion for the create/update siblings, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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