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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds genuinely useful behavior: session dates carry no year and must be resolved via `year` or `nextYear.year`, some current sessions may already be over, `nextYear` is only populated once dates are posted, and no seat counts are returned. These data quirks are exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot convey, though return shape/pagination is left implicit.

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 content payload is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the disambiguation rule and the sibling pointer. Every sentence carries distinct information — contents, year caveat, staleness warning, sibling routing, and the read-only/no-seat-count constraints — with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: it names the major sections (programs, dates, tuition, `nextYear`, online offerings, policy FAQ) and flags what is absent (seat counts). Combined with a zero-parameter schema, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With zero input parameters there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, so the baseline applies. The `year` and `nextYear.year` references describe output fields rather than inputs, which is helpful framing but not parameter documentation.

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 enumerates precisely what the catalog contains — this year's programs with session dates and tuition, next year's under `nextYear`, online offerings, and the policy FAQ — so the resource and its scope are unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from `get_enrollment_form`, which it explicitly characterizes as covering only weeks still ahead.

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?

It establishes context for use (program/date/tuition/policy lookup) and points the agent at `get_enrollment_form` when the need is future weeks rather than the full catalog. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule against `build_enrollment_link`, but the routing guidance it does give is concrete.

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