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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description layers on genuinely new behavior: the disambiguation policy (auto-pick a clear top match, ask the user when ambiguous), the user-facing presentation rule (show name/type/country/region, never internal IDs), and the ID lifecycle ('conversation-scoped until a persistence capability owns them'). None of that is derivable from the 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-loads purpose and the usage gate in the first two sentences, then adds policy. It is dense but every sentence carries a distinct instruction; the ID/presentation guidance is slightly beyond tool-invocation scope but still actionable.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, though it helpfully does. The usage gate and disambiguation policy make the tool callable correctly; the only real hole is the unexplained 'type' and 'limit' parameters.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies the 'query' parameter implicitly ('by name'). The 'type' enum (UNIVERSITY / HIGH_SCHOOL) and the 'limit' parameter (default 3, max 10) are never mentioned, so an agent gets no guidance on filtering by institution type or controlling shortlist size.

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 ('Search Studocu institutions by name') plus the scope constraint that names are the lookup key. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling search tools such as search-courses and search-documents, which search different resource types.

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 names the triggering context ('when establishing or correcting education context (onboarding / context setup)') and an exclusion ('Do not require this before every document search'). That is both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use instruction, which is rare and valuable.

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