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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it mentions pagination, explicit null handling for missing data, and that SAT/ACT bands are only present for verified universities. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict them.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary function, the second adds important detail about data completeness. No wasted words; information is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (paginated, nullable fields). It could explicitly describe pagination behavior (e.g., offset/limit usage) and potential response structure, but the existing detail is sufficient for tool selection.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by linking the 'with_test_bands_only' parameter to the behavior of including only universities with verified bands, but otherwise does not significantly extend parameter semantics.

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 it returns a paginated list of universities that support the fit diagnosis (적합도 진단). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like assess_admissions_fit and search_mentors by focusing on listing supported institutions.

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 implies usage context for retrieving supported universities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. It does clarify that certain data fields may be null if not verified, guiding agent expectations.

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