list_universitiesList BrightKey-profiled universities with optional filters. Returns slug, name, country, city, 6-dimension S/A/B/C/D tiers, and verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| minTier | No | ||
| acceptsIB | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the return fields and filter capability, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (no contradiction). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or default ordering, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key details. No redundant or unnecessary 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?
The description covers the purpose and return fields, but lacks parameter descriptions and pagination details. For a simple list tool with 4 optional parameters, it is moderately complete but has gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining individual parameters. It only says 'with optional filters' without detailing what each parameter (limit, country, minTier, acceptsIB) does.
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 clearly states it lists BrightKey-profiled universities with optional filters, and specifies the return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_university_profile (single university) or compare_universities (comparison).
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?
Usage is implied through the description ('list with optional filters'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: answering questions, comparing universities, calculating ROI, fetching details, getting profiles, listing universities, matching schools, and searching. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern, making them predictable. The only minor deviation is 'fetch', which is a single verb, but it's still clear and common for such operations.
8 tools is ideal for an education data server, covering core operations (search, list, profile, compare, ROI, etc.) without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The tool set covers main user needs: answering questions, searching and listing universities/schools, getting profiles and comparisons, and ROI calculations. Missing features like school comparison or data updates, but overall solid for a read-only knowledge base.