OBS Registration Draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it targets the active term, performs no write or recheck, and warns that stored eligibility is a snapshot rather than live data. Only the return-shape details are thin, which is fine given the output schema.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose plus the scope caveat are front-loaded. The alternative-tool pointer comes last where it belongs.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and it still summarizes them. The snapshot-vs-fresh distinction and the active-term scoping are exactly the context an agent needs before calling.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required by describing the draft as implicitly scoped to the active registration term.

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 precise verb (Read) and resource (saved OBS registration draft), then enumerates the exact contents returned (CRNs, course names, eligibility verdicts, restriction reasons, last check time, meeting times). This cleanly separates it from obs_save_registration_draft and obs_validate_registration_plan.

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 says it reads the active registration term, states the non-behaviors ('Does not save or recheck the draft'), and routes the agent to obs_validate_registration_plan when a fresh check is needed. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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