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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when the id is unknown (empty result vs error), nor anything about the returned record shape. With annotations carrying the burden, this is a missed opportunity rather than a failure.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the lookup key front-loaded, and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial single-parameter read, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as efficiency.

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 simple one-parameter read with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the minimum needed to call it. It omits the two things an agent would still want: valid id format and behavior on a missing id.

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 single required parameter `id` is documented nowhere except the phrase "by its id", which only confirms it is an identifier. It gives no format hint (numeric code, slug, UUID) or an example, leaving the agent to guess what a valid id looks like.

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 ("Get") and resource ("a single university"), and "single... by its id" implicitly distinguishes it from the list/search siblings. It stops short of naming kampus_list or kampus_search as alternatives, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 deduce this is the lookup-by-identifier path rather than a query path. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over kampus_search or kampus_list, nor any prerequisite or error-path guidance.

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