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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description only needs to add context, which it does: it discloses that this is a public endpoint returning English natural-language text, that sources/conditions/pagination are preserved, and that gap/online prices require detail checks. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination mechanics.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by usage routing and output caveats. Dense but nearly every clause carries a distinct instruction; slightly compressed wording costs it nothing significant.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: result nature (candidates not verdicts), language of results, source/condition preservation, and pagination. Minor gap is no mention of how page/pageSize interact or a default result size.

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 50%: locale, hasPrice, industry and residency are documented in-schema, while page, pageSize, keyword and pathway are not. The description adds useful semantics for pathway options (RPL/gap/online) and the residency labelling of prices, but does not clarify the paging or keyword parameters.

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 ('Find candidate qualifications') and enumerates the searchable axes (code/name, industry, pathway). It explicitly distinguishes its output from an eligibility assessment and names the sibling it complements, get_rpl_qualification.

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 explicit ordering advice ('Search before asking for missing personal details') and a clear handoff rule ('Use get_rpl_qualification to explain requirements and calculate conditional quotes'). It also sets a boundary ('Returns candidates, not an eligibility assessment'), so the agent knows when this tool is the wrong choice.

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