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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the catalog is 'active' (inactive entries excluded), 'worldwide', and that results support pagination and total count. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is a single focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the key behavioral notes. Every word 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?

The description is too sparse given the lack of an output schema and 0% parameter coverage. It does not explain what the response contains, how filters combine, or what formats are expected (e.g., country_code). An agent would have to guess at parameter semantics and return structure, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters. It does not explain query, city, country_code, limit, or offset semantics. The mention of pagination only vaguely hints at limit/offset, leaving parameter meaning almost entirely to inference from names.

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 clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('complete active UniAffitti university catalog'), and the scope ('worldwide'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_rooms, making the intended target unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for searching universities globally, and the resource name separates it from room search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions or preconditions, leaving usage somewhat implicit.

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