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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: possible statuses such as no_longer_listed_since, not_found_in_checked_records, and unknown, plus published_notices with dates/URLs and a caveat to confirm with the school and MEXT.

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 purpose is front-loaded as a direct question, and the description stays compact for a six-parameter tool. It is somewhat dense and repeats a few details already in the schema or output schema, but the information is relevant and not padded.

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 the read-only lookup nature, rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the core question, input alternatives, result statuses, source/notice fields, and an important confirmation caveat.

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 the baseline is 3. The description still adds useful guidance by indicating that school_name or school_code identifies the school, while prefecture, school_type, and establishment narrow results, and it reinforces exact-name matching behavior with width/spaces ignored.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: checking whether a school is in MEXT's tuition-support eligibility list, since when, and whether notifications/revocations exist. It is distinct by name and scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as tuition_support_changes or catalog.

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 implies use for checking a specific school and tells the agent to provide school_name or school_code, with prefecture/school_type/establishment as narrowing filters. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus sibling alternatives, nor when-not-to-use guidance.

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