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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by noting that values are historical and may be missing, that the returned school URL should be cited, and that no login or personal documents are accessed. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the key operational context: how to get the ID, what data is included, data freshness limitations, citation behavior, and access restrictions. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already describes unitid as 'IPEDS institution ID from search results' with 100% coverage, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. The instruction to use search_universities first reinforces the source of the ID but does not substantially go beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact data categories (admissions ranges, majors, costs, outcomes) plus the lookup key (IPEDS ID). It clearly distinguishes itself from search_universities, which resolves names, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to use search_universities to resolve a name first, which is direct when-to-use guidance. It also sets expectations about data currency and access boundaries, making the invocation context clear.

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