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 needs no restating. The description adds genuine context the annotations don't carry — the upstream data sources and the warning that proximity does not imply enrollment eligibility — but says nothing about pagination, coverage/partial results, or what 'strict' changes.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the caveat second; nothing is padded. The second sentence is genuinely useful but slightly cryptic out of context, which keeps it from a 5.

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 17-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the 'what data' question well but leaves the agent guessing on return shape, pagination via cursor/limit, and how strict/include_unresolved affect results. The schema is rich, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 100% across all 17 parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only implies the radius filter through 'within a radius' and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g., how zip vs. lat/lng vs. address resolve) 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 names the exact resource set (pre-K-12 public schools from NCES, public colleges/universities from IPEDS) and the scoping mechanism (within a radius), which is far more specific than the title alone. It lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from the sibling education_get, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says when to pick this over education_get or the other geo/record search siblings, nor are prerequisites (e.g., that at least one of q/zip/city+state/address/lat+lng is needed) stated. The line 'Proximity is not enrollment eligibility' is a semantic caveat about results, not usage guidance.

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