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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't mention the default page size, the 200-per-page cap, ordering of results, or what happens when filters match nothing. With annotations doing all the work, the description contributes no extra behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition — nothing to trim. Its brevity is not the problem; the missing content is scored elsewhere.

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 six-parameter listing tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the definition is thin: an agent learns it lists campuses but not how to drive the pagination or region filters effectively. Since an output schema is absent, the description should at least sketch the shape of returned records, and it does not.

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 only 17% (just the PTN/PTS gloss on 'kelompok'), so the description needs to compensate for five undocumented parameters. Instead it says only 'optional filters', offering no hints about jenis, provinsi_id, kabupaten_id, or the pagination pair page/per_page.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Indonesian universities/institutes/politeknics'), which is clear on its own. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools kampus_search and kampus_get, leaving an agent to guess which of the three to pick.

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 only usage signal is 'with optional filters', which implies browsing but never states when to prefer this over kampus_search (keyword lookup) or kampus_get (single record). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no guidance on combining filters or paging through results.

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