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 covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it lists the returned fields (location, type, programme count, tuition-from, page URL, apply-through flag) and confines results to 'published' institutes, which tells the agent what is excluded from results.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core action and scope come first, and the return-value summary follows with each field compressed into a short list.

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 an output schema documenting returns, rich annotations, and 100%-covered parameters, the description only needs to establish purpose and scope, which it does. The minor gap is the absence of guidance on how this search relates to the sibling search tools, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by name or city and country' restates the query/country semantics without adding format detail (e.g., how multiple words or partial matches resolve) beyond what the schema already says; page size is left to 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') plus a specific resource ('published Univs.com universities, colleges and institutes') and the searchable fields (name, city, country). The resource itself distinguishes it from siblings like search_programs and search_agencies, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for finding institutes, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance pointing to search_programs/search_agencies for adjacent lookups. The 'published' qualifier hints that unpublished entries are excluded but is not framed as a usage rule.

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