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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine operational context beyond them: the 50-row page cap and the next_offset/has_more pagination loop, which an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then browse semantics, then pagination. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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-value shape and the page.next_offset field need not be explained. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented client_id parameter and no guidance on how this search relates to adjacent district tools.

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%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that query accepts name, 7-digit LEA, or 14-digit CDS and that empty string means browse-all, which is real added value, but it says nothing about client_id or about limit/offset beyond the implicit page cap.

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 (search) plus a precisely scoped resource: current public California districts, searchable by name, 7-digit LEA, or 14-digit CDS. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like sacs_query_financial_summary or sacs_district_context_pack.

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?

Gives explicit operational context: omit query or pass an empty string to browse everything, and follow page.next_offset while page.has_more is true. It does not, however, contrast with sibling tools (e.g. sacs_compare_districts or sacs_district_context_pack) to tell the agent when this search is the wrong entry point.

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