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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the tool is educational only, takes no lot identifiers, performs no verification, and cannot be used for lot discovery. It does not describe the exact return content, but that is minor given the 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 three sentences with no fluff: it states the main educational purpose, then immediately clarifies limitations and provides a routing suggestion. Key non-goals are front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it cannot do, and how to handle real verification needs. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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%, with the single optional response_format parameter fully described by its enum and explanation. The tool description does not need to add parameter semantics because the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: explaining what a Certificate of Analysis is and how lot verification works, while linking the education course. It clearly differentiates itself from verification/lookup tools by explicitly stating it performs no verification and cannot discover lots.

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 gives explicit guidance on when not to use the tool: it cannot be used to discover lots or verify a real lot, and directs agents to point a human at the signed verifier for real lot checks. This provides clear context and an alternative path, meeting the when-not and alternative guidance criteria.

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