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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: it returns different information for round-based vs continuous-intake programmes, and includes 'official source'. It adds context beyond a simple 'check status' statement, though it does not cover edge cases like invalid IDs.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and includes usage advice without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, how it behaves for different programme types, and when to invoke it. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call correctly.

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?

The schema has only visa_id (string, no description), and schema coverage is 0%. The description references 'a single visa pathway' but does not explain what visa_id contains or where to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 the tool's function: 'Check the live intake status of a single visa pathway' and specifies what it returns (open status, last selection round/cutoff, expected next, official source). It distinguishes from siblings like compare or details by focusing on live status for a single pathway.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call it 'before recommending a pathway' to avoid sending users toward closed programmes, and explains behavior for continuous-intake visas. It provides clear usage context but does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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