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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds material context the agent cannot see elsewhere: `facts` may be entirely omitted for unchecked exams, dates are as-published and may change, and results include PDF links. The optional-field caveat is the kind of detail that prevents misinterpretation of a missing key.

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 return payload and the usage rule, then limitations. The parenthetical field enumerations are long but each maps to real returned data; the single limitation sentence is dense but 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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names every major section, flags the possibly-absent `facts` field, and warns about date volatility. Nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret the response is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents `slug` with its source and an example ('From search_exams, e.g. ssc-cgl'). The description only restates that provenance, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully carries the parameter.

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 ('Get one exam's details') and then enumerates the exact payload: status, date, ParikshaIndex section pages, curated facts with sources, and newest official documents with PDF links. An agent can distinguish this from search_exams without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use it after search_exams, with the `slug` of the exam result.' That names the alternative, the ordering, and the required input provenance. No exclusions are stated, but for a single-purpose detail lookup none are needed.

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