Scholarship and payouts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema – the default 365-day window – but says nothing about permissions, data freshness, or pagination.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the return content is front-loaded and the default-period behavior follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description partially compensates by sketching the return shape (totals by category, itemized payments with breakdown) and the default range. For a two-optional-param read tool with rich annotations, this is close to complete, though auth or scope caveats are absent.

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%: both date_from and date_to carry format and timezone ('Moscow time') details in the schema itself. The description does not add any syntax or interpretation beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (scholarship and payouts) and specifies what it returns: totals by category for a period plus individual payments with breakdown. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the sibling set covers unrelated domains (sport, grades, dormitory), so overlap risk is low.

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?

The description notes the default period ('last 365 days'), which implies when the tool is useful, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider. Usage is only weakly implied.

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