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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the disambiguation of url versus website and the note that phone is only included when known. This gives the agent practical interpretation guidance that structured annotations cannot convey.

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?

The description is long and bilingual, but each component earns its place: the field list, the id-source note, the URL disambiguation, and the routing to search_trainings. The dual-language format lengthens it, but the content is information-dense and front-loaded with the essential record summary.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, this description is complete: it enumerates the returned fields, explains how to get the id, clarifies ambiguous fields, and tells the agent what to use for related operations. No output schema exists, so the detailed field enumeration in the description is especially valuable.

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?

The schema already fully documents the numeric id parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by stating that the id is obtained from search_training_centers, which tells the agent where the identifier comes from and how to acquire it.

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?

The description clearly states that this tool returns the full record of a training establishment, enumerating the exact fields included. It also orients the agent by saying the identifier comes from search_training_centers and that listing programmes belongs to search_trainings, distinguishing it from those siblings.

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 explicitly explains how to obtain the required id via search_training_centers and when to call search_trainings instead for programme listings. It also gives practical guidance about the two URL fields, telling the agent which one to cite and which one to use for user referrals.

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