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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those fields: answers take 10–40 seconds, nothing is stored, and the answer is cited. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but covers the key latency and privacy expectations.

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 three short sentences and is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: scope, usage guidance, and latency/privacy expectations.

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 simple two-parameter question-answering tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns at a high level (a cited answer) and sets expectations for latency and storage, though it does not discuss answer formatting or audience behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds only the instruction to ask in the person's own terms and avoid identifiers, which partially overlaps the schema's question description and does not explain the audience enum.

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 states a specific verb and resource: ask a question about F-1/J-1 immigration, SEVIS, OPT, CPT, and get a cited answer. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools connect, search_sources, or share_to_page.

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?

It clearly scopes usage to immigration and student-status questions and adds a practical instruction to ask in the person's own terms without identifiers. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as search_sources, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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