edu.school-lookup

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields but does not specify details like case sensitivity, exact matching for state/city/zip, pagination behavior, or rate limits. For a read-only lookup, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates scope, search methods, and return fields. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description lists returned fields. It covers all searchable parameters but omits details like exact formats for state/city/zip and pagination info. For a simple lookup tool, it is largely complete.

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?

With only 38% schema description coverage (3 of 8 parameters documented), the description adds context by stating searchable fields and partial matching. However, it lacks format details for state, city, and zip, and does not explain limit/offset parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool's purpose: searching US public K-12 schools by various criteria. It specifies the data source (NCES Common Core of Data) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like edu.college-scorecard, which targets colleges.

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 lists multiple search fields (name, district, state, city, zip, ncessch) and notes partial matching for name and district. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance.

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