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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the list of returned data fields and the data source (College Scorecard). It does not add further behavioral context like rate limits or data recency, but given the rich annotations, the incremental value is moderate.

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 sentence concisely stating the purpose, followed by a list of returned fields. No filler or redundancy; front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters, output schema exists), the description, annotations, and schema together provide all necessary context. The description adds the return fields, which complements the output schema and ensures completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (id and _apiKey) described. The description mentions 'by its College Scorecard ID' which reinforces the id parameter but doesn't add new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'specific college' with a clear identifier 'College Scorecard ID'. It lists key return fields (tuition, admission rate, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_schools which likely search rather than fetch details.

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 usage when you have a specific College Scorecard ID and need detailed info. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, the sibling set includes search_schools, making the context reasonably clear. A score of 4 reflects the lack of explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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