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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses that responses are verbatim regulation text, warns that Zdana Matura only covers basic-level mathematics and does not guarantee a result, and instructs the agent to quote terms, avoid summarizing or overpromising, and supply termsUrl. This adds substantial behavioral context for safe, accurate use.

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 front-loaded with the substantive policy areas, followed by concrete usage triggers and then the quoting constraint. Every sentence contributes either content scope, invocation guidance, or behavioral rules, with no 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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what verbatim material is returned, when to use it, how to present it, and what URL to include. Nothing needed for correct invocation or response handling is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single section parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the behavior when omitted. The tool description itself does not add further parameter semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact content returned: verbatim policy statements about the 30-day satisfaction guarantee, the Zdana Matura program, and installment/deferred payment via PayU. It clearly distinguishes the resource from sibling tools like get_course, get_exam_dates, and get_funding_options by focusing on regulations and payment terms.

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 gives explicit triggering cases: when a parent asks about refunds, returning a course, the pass guarantee, what happens if the child fails, installments, or deferred payment. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended usage is otherwise clear.

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