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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: results are ranked so campuses with listings come first, and each hit carries a propertyCount. It omits what happens on no match, which is a minor gap.

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, zero filler, and the core purpose plus example are front-loaded before the workflow note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 discloses the returned identifier and propertyCount plus result ordering. For a single-parameter lookup this is nearly complete; only edge behavior (no results, tie-breaking) is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: the example shows the query is a free-text school name and hints at fuzzy/abbreviated matching. It does not specify matching rules (partial, case sensitivity), leaving a small gap.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Find a campus id by school name') and reinforces it with a worked example ('Ohio State' → osu.edu). The resource is clearly distinct from the property/owner siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

'Required before searching addresses' gives an explicit workflow prerequisite, telling the agent when this tool must be called. It does not name an alternative or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a full routing guide.

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