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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on value-add behavior: presentation rules (show name, type, country, not the id) and the ask-the-user fallback for ambiguous results. It does not cover result volume or empty-result handling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, downstream chaining, presentation, and ambiguity handling. The purpose is front-loaded with no filler.

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 a small read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it finds, why it is called, what to surface to the user, and what to do with multiple plausible matches.

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 each parameter (query, type, limit) is fully documented with constraints and examples, so the description need not repeat them. The description's mention of "type" refers to a result field rather than the type filter, adding no parameter meaning.

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 a school (university or high school) on Studocu by name") and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling search-courses by naming it as the downstream consumer of the returned id.

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 frames the use case as "to get its id for search-courses" and gives a disambiguation rule ("If several results are plausible, ask the user to pick"). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing to search-courses supplies clear context.

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