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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: figures are sourced from the official prospectus and FAQs and are returned with source URLs, which tells the agent the output is citable and authoritative. It stops short of noting staleness or prospectus-year scope.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The positive use case is front-loaded, provenance and exclusions follow, and every clause carries routing or trust information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary in the description. For a two-param, zero-required read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything missing: scope, exclusions, and source authority.

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%, and the enum for category (A = open merit subsidized, S = All Pakistan partial-subsidized) and the hostel flag are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about how hostel=true changes the estimate or how category affects totals, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (estimate UET Taxila undergraduate fees) and enumerates the exact sub-costs covered: tuition per semester, admission charges, first-semester total, hostel, application/entry test fees. It also scopes out other universities and postgraduate fees, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_uet_program and list_uet_programs.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a user asks what UET Taxila undergraduate admission costs') plus explicit exclusions ('Do not use it for other universities or for postgraduate fees'). The when/when-not pair is exactly what an agent needs for routing.

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