Search Philippine scholarships

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile. The description adds material context beyond that: the corpus is curated and fact-checked against official pages, and it states the return shape (summary, period, official URL) plus a grounding constraint ('Never state amounts or deadlines the results do not contain'). It does not cover empty-result or low-confidence-match behavior.

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 dense sentences with the action and scope first, examples second, and the escalation path plus grounding rule last. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 carries the return-value burden and discharges it by naming summary, period and official URL. For a 4-parameter read-only search, the only remaining item an agent might want is behavior on zero matches, which is minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description contributes beyond the schema by modeling how the query parameter should look in practice ('incoming college, BS Engineering', 'anak ng OFW', 'TESDA courses'), which shows Taglish phrasing and colloquial terms the schema's 'English or Taglish' line does not illustrate.

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 ('Find Philippine scholarships and student financial aid') plus the matching criterion ('that match a question, in English or Taglish'). The parenthetical program list (DOST, CHED, TESDA, OWWA, LGUs, foundations, universities) distinguishes it from ph_list_scholarships, which enumerates rather than matches.

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 routes the agent to ph_get_scholarship 'for full eligibility and benefits', which is a clear alternative-selection rule. It gives concrete example queries to anchor when this tool fires, but never contrasts itself with ph_list_scholarships, so the sibling boundary for enumeration vs search is only implied.

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