List Philippine scholarships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the list is "curated" and filtered; it says nothing about result size, pagination behavior, or whether a total count is returned. With annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 waste: purpose and filters first, the sibling routing second. Nothing is repeated from the title and every clause earns its place.

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?

Annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile and the schema fully documents all six parameters, so the description only needed to state scope and routing, which it does. The one gap is pagination: with a default limit of 20 and a max of 50 plus an offset, an agent isn't told whether it must page through results or whether a total count comes back, and there is no output schema to answer that.

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%, with enums documented for level, provider_type and response_format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes three of the six filter names (level, provider type, region) but adds no semantics beyond the schema and omits mention of limit/offset/pagination. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ("browse the full curated list of Philippine scholarships") plus the filter dimensions available, and explicitly names the sibling it is not (ph_search_scholarships). An agent can distinguish it from ph_get_scholarship and ph_search_scholarships without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use ph_search_scholarships when you have a specific question, implying this tool is for unfiltered/exploratory browsing. The exclusion criterion ("specific question") is slightly loose rather than a crisp condition, and it doesn't mention ph_get_scholarship for a known scholarship, but the primary alternative is covered.

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