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

Annotations provide only generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries some behavioral burden. It adds that the output is a process checklist rather than an award computation, and includes a concrete cost note; it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or rate limits, but for a checklist generator the non-goal plus cost is reasonable context.

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 plus a cost line; the main verb and scope appear immediately, followed by value and a non-goal. No filler, and each clause adds information an agent or user would want.

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 eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough orientation: it names the core drivers, clarifies the deliverable, and states a boundary. It doesn't describe output shape or all optional inputs, but the schema covers parameters and a checklist's format is self-evident, so this is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description calls out grade, dependency, and income as drivers, reinforcing the schema but adding no new meaning about formats, defaults, or interactions; the schema already documents all eight parameters.

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 action ('Produce a FAFSA action checklist') with clear scope ('for one student') and key inputs (grade, dependency status, income band). The closing 'Does not compute an award' distinguishes it from award/aid siblings without naming them.

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?

Clear context is given: it answers the process question ('what do we do, in what order, by when') rather than calculating awards. It gives an implicit exclusion ('Does not compute an award'), but it does not name sibling tools or state explicit when-to-use/alternative conditions.

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