OBS Validate Registration Plan

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the three-valued return (valid/invalid/incomplete), the conditional treatment of planned courses for prerequisite chains, and explicit non-persistence. It does not explain why readOnlyHint=false if nothing is saved, nor any external-checker limits or session/auth needs, leaving a small gap.

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?

Front-loads what is validated and against what sources, then layers scope limits, conditional semantics and disclaimers. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details need not be spelled out, and the description still covers inputs, sources used, three-valued outcome and caveats. The only unexplained item is the readOnlyHint=false annotation sitting in tension with the stated non-persistence, which an agent may need to reconcile.

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 coverage is 0% for the single `crns` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add the meaningful cardinality constraint 'one to twelve' that the schema lacks, but supplies no format detail (e.g. string vs numeric CRN).

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 (validate) and resource (a proposed registration plan of 1-12 CRNs) using a named independent checker. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as obs_save_registration_draft, check_course_conflicts and explain_course_eligibility, which cover only fragments of the same job.

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 closing line 'Does not save a draft or register courses' implicitly routes the agent to obs_save_registration_draft/registration for committing, and the 'one to twelve proposed CRNs' framing defines the pre-registration context. However, no alternative tool is named explicitly and there is no explicit when-not guidance relative to check_course_conflicts.

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