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 fully covered. The description adds the useful detail that high schools additionally return departments/tracks, which is genuine conditional behavior, but says nothing about failure modes for invalid codes or any result-shape caveats.

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 compact sentence with the field list front-loaded and the conditional high-school clause appended at the end. Every clause conveys information; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by enumerating the fields—including the conditional department/track data. What remains missing is error behavior for unresolvable codes and any note on the search_schools prerequisite, which keeps it short of complete.

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%: both eduCode and schoolCode are documented with patterns and concrete examples ('B10', '7010082'). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; it neither compensates for a gap nor wastes space restating 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?

The description names the resource (school) and enumerates the exact fields returned—Korean/English name, type, address, phone, fax, homepage, founding date, public/private, coeducational, supervising office—plus a conditional extension for high schools. That is a specific, unambiguous purpose. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_schools, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only routing signal lives in the schema ('code from search_schools'), not in the description, so an agent must open the schema to learn this is a follow-up call to search_schools.

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