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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds substantial behavior: it refuses to guess when a rule is unpublished, and it returns eligible:null rather than true when the university's own listing conflicts, with an unresolved_discrepancy field the agent must relay. That is exactly the kind of edge-case contract annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layers the important caveats in a logical order. It is four dense sentences with some repetition of the 'don't guess / not an admission decision' theme, but nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return semantics and does so: eligible can be null, and unresolved_discrepancy must be relayed. For a three-parameter read-only check, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so percent, programme, and highest_qualification are already fully documented with their applicable levels. The description restates that percentage is for undergraduate entry and qualification for postgraduate/doctoral entry but adds no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (check) and resource (entry requirement eligibility for a programme) plus the inputs that drive the decision (Class 12 percentage or highest qualification). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like calculate_total_annual_fee or get_course without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: it answers only from published rules, and it explicitly warns not to treat a 'yes' as an admission decision, which tells the agent how to frame the result. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. use list_programmes to get keys, which is only implied via the schema), so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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