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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses what the tool returns (normalized score, band, key findings, interpretation, per-category scores, next step, safety limitations), confirms output consistency across interfaces, and explicitly limits itself to decision support. It does not mention side effects or data persistence, but the accept-answers-and-return-result nature makes that a minor gap.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: tool status, function, inputs, outputs, then limitations. The length is reasonable for a primary tool with complex output. The 'single canonical tool' sentence is somewhat redundant with 'PRIMARY TOOL' but adds useful cross-interface consistency 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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates well by enumerating the major return fields, so an agent knows what to expect. Parameter documentation is fully covered by the input schema. The main contextual gap is the lack of disambiguation from the near-identically named sibling 'run_student_protection_readiness_assessment', which is material in this sibling-tool environment.

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%; each of q1-q12 already has a semantic description and min/max constraints. The tool description restates that answers are q1-q12 integers from 1-4 but adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

Description opens with 'PRIMARY TOOL. Run the Student Protection Readiness Checklist end-to-end' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly states accepted input (12 answers q1-q12, integers 1-4) and enumerates the return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'run_student_protection_readiness_assessment', relying on 'canonical' rather than naming the alternative.

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?

'PRIMARY TOOL' and 'single canonical tool shared by the browser WebMCP, REST API, and this MCP server' give strong selection context. 'Decision support only – it does not diagnose... or replace emergency services or professionals' states clear boundaries on appropriate use. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not conditions relative to them, so it falls short of a 5.

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