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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: data source (federal IPEDS), vintage (fall 2024, 2024-25), population restriction (3,000+ full-time students), and the specific metrics returned.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses only two sentences, with no filler. However, the first sentence is a long, dense enumeration of data fields, which is useful but makes the definition harder to scan quickly than a more structured presentation would.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so comprehensively by listing enrollment, housing beds, bed gap, charges, aid budgets, and the Fannie Mae test. Combined with fully described input parameters and annotations covering safety, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

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 all three parameters are already fully documented. The description repeats the lookup methods (name with optional state, or IPEDS UNITID) but does not add syntax or selection semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the explicit 'unitid overrides name' behavior.

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 verb/resource: retrieving one US four-year campus from IPEDS data, with a clear scope of 3,000+ full-time students. It distinguishes the tool from a general campus search by emphasizing 'One' campus and specifying exact lookup methods. The extensive data fields further clarify what the campus record contains.

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 explains how to invoke the tool: by name with optional state, or by IPEDS UNITID. This gives clear context for lookup, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_campuses or state when not to use this tool, such as when the campus is unknown.

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