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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: results are a page of compact summaries, webUrl is a user-facing oneuedu.com link, and tuition is reported for the given studentLocation. It doesn't cover result-count limits or empty-result behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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 the action and scope, then the result shape and the follow-up tool. The parenthetical filter enumeration partly duplicates the schema and lengthens the sentence, but overall it is tight and earns its place.

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 24 optional parameters and no output schema, the description usefully sketches what comes back (compact summaries, tuition, provider, page url, webUrl) and flags the studentLocation dependency. Remaining gaps such as pagination mechanics are handled by the schema, so the definition is nearly sufficient for correct invocation.

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 every filter is already documented with enums and examples. The description merely re-lists filter categories (state/city, AQF level, field of education, fee, IELTS, length) that the schema explains in more depth, adding little beyond what structured data provides. 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+resource with scope ('Search CRICOS-registered Australian courses for international students') and names the filters and result shape. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_course, which handles full detail for a single course.

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 a clear search-then-detail workflow by routing to get_course afterwards, and implies the tool is the entry point for course discovery. It does not state when a search is inappropriate (e.g. when the course code is already known), so it stops short of 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.