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

The annotation destructiveHint=true directly contradicts the description, which says the tool only looks up offerings and returns name, slug, and summary. The readOnlyHint=true supports the description, but the destructive hint creates a serious inconsistency that an agent cannot resolve confidently. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts annotations receives a score of 1.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, return values are summarized, and exclusions with alternatives are stated directly. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection and invocation.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, and exclusions thoroughly. The only notable gap is the contradictory destructiveHint annotation, which creates avoidable confusion despite the description itself being complete.

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?

There is only one parameter, query, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including examples like 'Sonlight' or 'Beast Academy.' The description reinforces the intended use by framing the query as a specific offering or publisher name, but it does not add substantial semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up specific homeschool offerings by name in the Homeschool Tools database.' It also gives concrete examples of when to use it, such as checking coverage or getting a slug, and clearly differentiates it from find_curriculum and other general-purpose tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to check whether a curriculum the user mentioned is covered, or to get its slug') and when not to use it ('Do not use this for general recommendations, lesson planning, tutoring, or non-curriculum questions'). It even names the alternative tool, find_curriculum, making the routing clear.

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