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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent/open-world) by disclosing ingest exclusions (head-teacher names and phone numbers dropped, governors extract never ingested), source freshness cadence (daily GIAS, monthly Ofsted MI), and rate-limit/preview behavior. These are precisely the traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns before covering sources and cost; four sentences with little waste. The field enumeration is long but justified given 22 queryable columns, so it earns its space without being padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and the Ofsted join, and covers cost and preview limits. It omits pagination semantics for page/per_page and the valid values for categorical filters, which slightly under-serves a 22-parameter tool.

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 22 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, but it only clarifies two behaviors (q searches all text fields, AND-combined filters). Many parameters (urn, name, phase, region, status, ofsted_rating, pupils_min/max, date bounds) are self-naming, so 3 is fair, but no enum values or range/format semantics are supplied for fields like phase, status, or website_present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (query the DfE GIAS register of schools/colleges/nurseries) and enumerates the field families it returns, plus the Ofsted join by URN. An agent can distinguish it from sibling query_uk_* tools purely from the description, since it names its two data sources outright.

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?

Explains how filters behave ('Filters combine with AND; q searches all text fields') and the cost/access model (1 credit with API key, otherwise a 5-row preview at 20 calls/day), which is real invocation guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer or avoid this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling set is domain-disjoint so the gap is small.

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