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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them by explaining the SAT ranking semantics (distance from the student to each school's 75th percentile) and by disclosing the return payload (names intended for the estimate tools), which matters because there is no output schema. Pagination and default ordering without a SAT score remain unstated.

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 purpose, then the ranking behavior, then the output handoff. Every clause carries information and none is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 7-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ranking semantics, and the returned value, which is what an agent most needs. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement of how results are ordered when no SAT score is supplied, and no mention of filter combination behavior.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the SAT parameter's ranking mechanism in more depth than the schema's terse 'Rank results by SAT fit', and by covering the undocumented type parameter as public/private. It does not explain how the acceptance-rate bounds interact.

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 names a specific verb and resource (find U.S. colleges) and enumerates the filter facets (name, state, public/private, acceptance-rate range), so the tool's scope is immediately legible. It hints at the downstream relationship with the estimate tools, but never contrasts itself with the closest siblings find_colleges_for_score or get_school_admissions_data, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 gives real usage context for one mode: supplying a SAT score ranks schools by proximity to the 75th percentile, and the returned names feed the estimate tools. However, there is no when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over find_colleges_for_score or get_school_admissions_data, leaving the choice to inference.

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