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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return content — matching institutions with location, control, predominant degree, and enrollment — which is especially valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The search scope and filters lead, and the return content follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only search tool with no required parameters and fully documented schema fields, the description covers what it searches, what filters are available, and what comes back. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's explicit return fields.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description merely recaps the filter attributes without adding new detail about matching behavior, value formats, or combination semantics, so it earns the baseline score.

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 action ('Search US colleges and universities') and lists the available filter dimensions, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like college_accreditation or college_compare, but the general lookup scope is evident from the resource and return fields.

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 implies this is the general-purpose college search tool — use it to find institutions by name, state, control, size, or accreditor. It provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool such as college_accreditation or college_outcomes_by_program, leaving the choice mostly to inference.

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