Get scholarship details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: the null convention for fields the official page omits, plus the last-checked timestamp that signals data freshness. It does not describe error behavior for a missing id.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the identity and scope, then the returned fields, then the null convention. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the null-data rule, and the response_format parameter is documented in the schema. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, including an example id format and the response_format enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance meaning for the id (which tools emit it) and links response_format implicitly to 'full details', giving a modest lift beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Full details of one Philippine scholarship by id') and enumerates the payload (eligibility, benefits, application period, how to apply, URLs, last-checked date). This clearly separates it from the list/search siblings, which return multiple records rather than one full record.

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 names the two sibling tools that produce a valid id (ph_search_scholarships, ph_list_scholarships), which is real routing guidance. It does not explicitly state the prerequisite 'obtain an id first' or what happens with an unknown id, but the context is clear.

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