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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it 'returns ranked net costs and best option', which implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only or non-destructive behavior. For a simple calculator, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences plus a pointer to list_bundles. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and usage.

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?

Output schema exists, so return details are covered. The description explains inputs and outputs, but the mismatch in input representation (pairs vs. separate fields) creates a gap. It does not mention that each scholarship defaults to 0, though schema provides that. Overall adequate but with a notable inaccuracy.

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%, baseline 3. However, the description misrepresents the input structure as 'list of {tuition, aid} pairs' while the schema has a single tuition and three separate scholarship fields. This inaccuracy reduces the added value and may mislead an agent about how to invoke the tool.

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 it compares net tuition cost across scholarships and aid packages, and specifies use for college choice. However, it describes inputs as 'list of {tuition, aid} pairs' while the schema expects a single tuition and up to three separate scholarship amounts, creating a minor mismatch that could confuse an agent.

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 says 'Use for college choice' and points to 'list_bundles for related education calculators', giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling calculators.

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