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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic detail about the metrics ('one year after completion', 'at completion') but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether all programs are returned, how missing data is handled, or the response structure.

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?

The description is a single, tightly packed sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and scope before enumerating the returned metrics, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description provides the essential return-value details: earnings, debt, and award counts at program level. It could be slightly clearer that the tool returns data for all programs for the given school rather than requiring a CIP-code input, but the schema plus description are sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter, unit_id, is fully described in the schema as an IPEDS UNITID, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 precisely identifies the resource (program-level outcomes), the granularity (4-digit CIP code), the scope (one school), and the specific measures returned (median earnings, median debt, award counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like college_metrics or college_value_score.

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 phrase 'Program-level outcomes ... for one school' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a caller needs earning, debt, or award-count metrics broken down by program. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope and granularity are evident.

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