List Philippine universities and colleges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The one genuinely additive behavioral fact is "Partial coverage, not every school", which meaningfully warns the agent not to treat empty results as non-existence. Beyond that it says nothing about default page size or the cost of paginating, which is left entirely to the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filters, then the coverage caveat — a sensible ordering with no filler. It could be marginally tighter since the type/region examples duplicate the schema, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields (code, type, city, region). Pagination and result caps live in the schema, and the "partial coverage" caveat sets expectations. For a simple read-only list tool this is close to complete; only the ordering or total-count behavior of results is unstated.

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 all five parameters including examples ("State", "R10") and pagination defaults. The description restates the same region and type examples almost verbatim, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 names the resource (Philippine universities and colleges) and enumerates the fields returned (code, type, city, region), so the agent knows exactly what a call yields. It is clear and specific, though it lacks an explicit verb like "list" and doesn't distinguish itself from any sibling beyond citing ph_list_regions as a code source — a minor gap given there is no competing school-listing tool.

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?

Guidance is implicit but traceable: "Filter by region code from ph_list_regions (e.g. 'R10')" tells the agent to source valid codes from a sibling tool first, and "Partial coverage, not every school" warns results are incomplete. What is missing is any when-not guidance — e.g. whether to paginate through all results or when a narrower type filter is preferred over a broad listing.

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