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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It does so with the ordering rule ('Open programs come first, soonest deadline first'), which tells the agent how to interpret the first results. Pagination/sign-in limits are covered only by the schema, so not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences ordered by importance: what is found, how results are sorted, then when to use it versus siblings. No filler and no repetition of schema detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, ordering, and follow-up tool. It is nearly complete; only the unmentioned 'ambassador' type and pagination/sign-in ceilings beyond the schema are minor gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the three enums. The description adds some framing ('whether applications are open, the deadline and the career field') that maps to status and field, but it omits the 'ambassador' program type present in the enum and says nothing about the query or page/limit parameters. 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find internship, fresher, graduate, management-trainee and scholarship programs') and pins the scope (students/new grads, Vietnam, tech and other fields). An agent can distinguish this from search_jobs and get_program from the description alone.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use when a student asks about internships or programs; for individual job postings use search_jobs. Then get_program for one program's details.' It names both the trigger and the two relevant alternatives with their selection conditions.

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