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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the scope of a single-entity retrieval, with no note on missing-id behavior, error cases, or return size; that is acceptable given the annotation coverage but adds little.

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 core purpose is one front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. The vendor attribution line adds no decision-relevant information but is short boilerplate rather than a real cost.

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 one-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Only a hint on return contents or an id source would push it higher.

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% and the id parameter carries a concrete example ('us.ca.edu.nces-060720000674'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates 'by Datamart id' without adding format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's example.

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 resource ('one school site or college campus') and its lookup key ('by Datamart id'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling education search tool, leaving that differentiation to the reader.

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?

'By Datamart id' implies the single-record lookup pattern and the prerequisite of already holding an id, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus profullstack_education_search, nor where an id comes from. Guidance is only implied.

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