check_eligibility

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values including 'unknowns' for unverifiable notes. However, it doesn't state side effects (none implied), required permissions, or behavior when inputs are invalid. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence of ~20 words, front-loaded with key info. No fluff. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Covers main purpose and outputs, but no output schema exists to define return structure. Missing details like whether output is a list or dict, or what the 'unsatisfied prereq subtree' looks like. Adequate for the tool's complexity but could be more helpful.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no additional meaning beyond parameter names. It mentions 'course_strings' and 'completed courses' but doesn't explain format (e.g., comma-separated? list of IDs?). Value is marginal 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'check eligibility'. Specifies inputs (course_strings, completed) and outputs (eligible, unsatisfied prereq subtree, unknowns). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_prereq_tree which only returns prereq structure without checking eligibility.

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?

Description implies usage: when you need to check eligibility given completed courses. But no explicit mention of when not to use or alternatives like solve_degree_plan. Could benefit from stating it's for individual course checks rather than plan optimization.

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