match_schoolsList BrightKey-profiled international schools, filtered by city and/or curriculum (e.g. IB, A-Levels, AP). Returns name, curricula, fees, inspection rating, tiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | e.g. singapore, tokyo, dubai | |
| limit | No | ||
| curriculum | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (name, curricula, fees, etc.) and the source (BrightKey-profiled). No contradictions.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and filtering options. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It could mention default behavior when no filters are applied, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 only 33% (only city has a description). The description mentions filtering by city and/or curriculum but does not explain the format or allowed values for curriculum, nor the limit parameter. Incomplete compensation.
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 the tool lists BrightKey-profiled international schools with filtering by city and/or curriculum, and specifies the return fields (name, curricula, fees, inspection rating, tiers). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_universities.
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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_universities or answer_education_question. It only describes what it does, not when to prefer it.
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.