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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and the data returned (readiness, scores, trajectory, weaknesses), but says nothing about permissions, behavior when multiple identifiers conflict or are omitted, or error conditions.

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 front-loaded sentences with no waste. The alias declaration leads, and the payload description follows immediately.

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 lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate on payload but incomplete on lookup semantics: with no required parameters, an agent needs to know at least one identifier is needed and how they combine.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no guidance on how the three lookup keys (email, query, candidate_id) interact or which takes precedence, which is a meaningful gap given zero required parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('look up a learner candidate') and discloses the returned data (readiness, scores, test trajectory, weaknesses). The alias framing ('Alias for get_candidate_dossier') clearly ties it to a sibling, though it doesn't explain why two names exist.

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?

Calling it an alias implies this can substitute for get_candidate_dossier, which is useful routing context. However, it never says when to prefer this alias over the canonical tool, nor which of the three lookup parameters to use.

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