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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating the data source ('official prospectus and FAQs with their source URLs'), which tells the agent the figures are authoritative and citable. It doesn't discuss caching, currency, or staleness, but those are minor gaps against an otherwise transparent read-only estimation tool.

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?

Single sentence structure, front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by coverage scope and exclusions. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides precisely the missing context: scope, source, and exclusions. Nothing else is needed for the agent to call this tool correctly.

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 both parameters, and the enum labels A/S are described. The description doesn't repeat parameter details, which is fine. Baseline for a 0-required-param tool with full coverage is around 3; the enum descriptions in the schema are thorough. Slight bump to 4 because the description's enumeration of cost components (hostel charges) aligns with the 'hostel' parameter, giving the agent intuition about what toggling it does.

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 (estimate) and resource (UET Taxila fees), then enumerates the exact cost components covered: tuition per semester, admission charges, first-semester total, hostel charges, application and entry test fees. This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_merit_aggregate or get_uet_program.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when a user asks what UET Taxila undergraduate admission costs') and explicit when-not-to-use ('Do not use it for other universities or for postgraduate fees'). This is exactly what an agent needs to route correctly.

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