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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly states concrete behavioral boundaries: it returns at most 20 institutions, links to school profiles, searches only public institutional records, does not access student accounts, and does not predict admission. This gives the agent a strong safety and scope profile without contradiction.

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 three sentences with no wasted words: the first defines search dimensions, the second defines result shape, and the third defines data-source boundaries and non-behaviors. The core purpose is front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct value.

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 search dimensions, result limits, and explicit exclusions, which is strong for a read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations. However, it does not clarify whether multiple filters are combined with AND or OR, and it leaves the meaning of max_acceptance_rate as an upper-bound filter slightly implicit.

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%, and the description compensates by mapping each parameter to a concept: name to query, two-letter location to state, field of study to major, acceptance rate to max_acceptance_rate, and the 20-result cap to limit. It does not detail exact formats or default values, but it provides enough meaning for correct invocation.

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 opens with 'Find colleges' and identifies specific search dimensions: name, two-letter location, field of study, and historical acceptance rate. It clearly describes a search/listing tool, and the return cap of 20 institutions with profile links distinguishes it from the detail and financial-aid sibling tools, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 verb 'Find' and the listing-oriented return shape imply this tool is for discovery, not for retrieving individual school details or financial aid data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance referencing the sibling tools, so an agent must infer routing from context.

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