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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing exactly what the response contains (deadlines per cycle, official application link), which helps the agent decide whether this call answers the user's question.

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, zero filler. The content enumeration is front-loaded and the usage routing follows immediately, so an agent gets purpose and trigger in one pass.

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 a single fully documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description needs only to state purpose and usage — both are present. Nothing required to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the slug parameter is documented with a concrete example, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only implies the slug's provenance via 'Use after search_programs' and adds no format or constraint 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 and resource ('Details of one internship, fresher, graduate or scholarship program in Vietnam') and enumerates the content covered: overview, eligibility, benefits, selection process, locations, deadlines, application link. This clearly separates it from the list-style sibling search_programs.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after search_programs when the user wants to know more about a program', naming the alternative tool and the condition that selects this one. The sequencing (detail fetch after a search) is unambiguous.

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