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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context — the supplied profile is not persisted — which an agent could not infer from the annotations. It says nothing about matching quality, result size, or latency expectations.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the privacy caveat; no wasted words. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a tool taking a nested profile object in a family of 28 similarly named tools the description omits too much. It gives no sense of how suggestions differ from academy_search results, nor what makes the profile well-formed.

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 single required parameter `profile` is a nested object whose sub-fields (goals, constraints, capabilities, environment) have no schema descriptions at all, and the description adds nothing about what belongs in them. Only the transport-level params (locale, idempotencyKey) are documented in the schema, so the semantically important parameter remains undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Suggest matching library items") plus a differentiator ("with reasons"). However it never distinguishes itself from sibling tools like academy_search or academy_library, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which retrieval entry point to use.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the ~28 academy_* siblings. The only conditional information is a privacy constraint ("never saved"), which is not usage guidance.

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