edu.school-lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (NCES), scope (~102k schools), and return fields. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: what it does, how many schools, source, search criteria, return fields.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers search capabilities and return fields adequately. However, it does not explain default behavior when no parameters are given or how multiple criteria are combined.

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 38% (only 3 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning by listing allowed search fields, partially compensating for missing schema descriptions. However, parameters like limit and offset are not explained.

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 clearly states that it searches for US public K-12 schools by various criteria and lists the return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edu.college-scorecard by focusing on K-12.

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?

It enumerates searchable parameters (name, district, state, city, zip, ncessch) and return fields, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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