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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the important fallback behavior: if no exact matches, it relaxes conditions and returns broadened=true with relaxed fields. It also stresses that only actual registered mentors are returned, a meaningful quality guarantee not covered by 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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function and output, the second describes the relaxation behavior. Every clause adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main return fields and the important broadening behavior, which is essential for an agent to interpret results. With no output schema, this provides sufficient context. However, it doesn't explain how the 'limit' parameter affects results, a minor gap given 6 optional 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 coverage is 83%, with descriptions for 5 of 6 parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does imply that conditions map to the query parameters. With high schema coverage, the description's lack of additional parameter semantics is acceptable.

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 identifies the tool as searching for GoAnywhere's approved admitted-student mentors, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on admissions fit, lead capture, booking, or universities. It specifies the returned data (school, major, admission history, rating, profile link) and the key constraint of returning only real mentors.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate (finding real mentors) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tools are distinct enough that context alone implies usage, but explicit when-not-to-use guidance is missing.

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