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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The only added context is that filtering and pagination exist, which is modest; nothing is said about default page size, result caps, or what a page of results looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, its domain, and its capabilities with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape (filterable, paginated, Indonesian school types).

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Optional filters' does not explain that provinsi_id/kabupaten_id are wilayah identifiers, nor what the status enum values (Negeri/Swasta) mean, nor the per_page maximum of 200 or the page default.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List Indonesian schools') and even enumerates the school-type taxonomy (SD/SMP/SMA/SMK/SLB). It does not, however, distinguish this list endpoint from the sibling sekolah_get or sekolah_search, so an agent still has to infer which of the three to call.

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?

It states that filters and pagination are available but never says when to use this tool versus sekolah_search (presumably keyword lookup) or sekolah_get (single record by id). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria of any kind.

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