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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that this is a public endpoint (no auth implied), that output is English natural-language text preserving sources/conditions/pagination, and enumerating what each result contains (registration period, regulator, decision counts, linked CRICOS schools, external links). No contradictions with annotations.

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 verb+resource, then searchable fields, then result contents, then the get_rto hand-off. Dense but essentially every clause carries information; the parenthetical explanation of VET qualifications is the only slightly expendable segment.

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 by naming the result fields and links. Combined with annotations covering safety and 78% schema coverage on 9 parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only per-parameter format nuances (e.g., 'all' status behavior, sort defaults) are left to the schema.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters (query, status, locale, sort, withOneuCourses, withCurrentRegulatoryDecisions). The description's listing of searchable fields and filter dimensions mostly restates those same parameters, adding a coherent summary but little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 (search the register of Australian RTOs) and immediately disambiguates scope by naming the sibling it is not: 'Use get_rto for one RTO in full.' It also spells out what can be matched on (name, trading name, RTO code, ABN, linked school name) so an agent can tell it apart from get_rto and get_rto_regulatory_actions without opening schemas.

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?

The description gives clear operational context: name/ABN/code lookup plus filters, and an explicit alternative ('Use get_rto for one RTO in full'). It does not, however, mention the other closely related sibling get_rto_regulatory_actions, nor state when this search would be the wrong choice beyond the single-RTO case.

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