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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds behavioral context by enumerating what the returned information covers (audience, formats, exam prep, public vs. subscription, SuperAI, certificates, contact). It does not describe the response shape, but for a simple profile retrieval that is a minor gap.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary behavior and the information domains; the second sentence gives the intended use. Every clause contributes value.

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?

This is a simple, no-required-parameter retrieval tool with a fully documented optional enum. The description tells the agent what the tool returns, covers the main content areas, and states when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 optional parameter, section, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and description. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but the schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: a profile of what SuperȘcoala is, including audience, grades, formats, and subscription boundaries. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which target courses, lessons, packages, subjects, teachers, and searches.

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 explicitly states the intended use: 'Use it to describe or recommend the platform.' This gives clear context for when an agent should call it, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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