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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the shape of the result set (slugs, level, duration, mode, fee range) and the intended chaining into get_course_details, which matters given there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with what is searched, then what comes back, then the next step. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is 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?

With no output schema and only moderate parameter coverage, the description usefully discloses return fields and the follow-up tool, which is exactly what an agent needs to plan a two-step flow. The only omission is any mention of the limit/pagination behavior of the result set.

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 67% and the schema itself documents query and level's allowed values (UG, PG, Diploma, etc.). The description's example queries ('online MBA', 'BCA') add real meaning to query, but the limit parameter is never explained and 'level' appears only as a returned field, not as a filter, which mildly blurs its role.

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 (search) plus the exact resource and corpus ('Indian degree, diploma and online courses on CareerBhavan'), and anchors it with concrete example queries. That resource scoping cleanly separates it from siblings like search_colleges and search_guides.

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 routes the agent forward: 'Use get_course_details next for syllabus, eligibility and colleges offering it,' which names the sibling and the condition that selects it. It gives no when-not guidance (e.g. use search_colleges instead when the user wants institutions), so it stops short of a 5.

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