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

The description discloses output fields returned (name, country, amount, deadline, etc.) and clarifies the GPA scale (4.0), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention pagination, default behavior with no filters, or filter semantics (e.g., AND/OR), leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no 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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then lists filters and outputs efficiently. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, filterable parameters, and return fields for an agent to use it effectively. Since the schema already documents parameters and there is no output schema, the return field list compensates. Minor gaps like default behavior or result limits are not critical for a search tool.

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%, with each parameter having a rich description including examples and enumerations. The tool description only restates the filter names without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 explicitly states the tool searches a scholarship database, specifies the target audience (African postgraduate students), and lists filterable criteria (country, field, GPA, degree level, tier). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_scholarship by framing this as a search operation.

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 conveys the tool's purpose of searching and filtering scholarships, implying it should be used when a student needs to find scholarships matching specific criteria. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer match_scholarships or get_scholarship, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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