Find schools and kindergartens (Poland)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results include exam results benchmarked against the national average and that address queries sort by distance, but it says nothing about result caps beyond the schema, rate limits, or coverage caveats.

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second documents the place input. No filler sentences, though the field enumeration makes the first sentence long and slightly run-on.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the exam-result benchmarks, which is what an agent needs. It is nearly complete for a search tool, lacking only explicit guidance on sibling selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'place' formats (town, gmina, address, 'lat,lon') and the distance-sorting implication, but this largely duplicates the schema rather than adding new 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (schools and kindergartens in Poland), and enumerates the returned fields (type, address, pupil count, RSPO id, exam results). It is clearly distinguishable from school_details by its search/aggregation framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'place' input patterns and the mention of sorting by distance. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus school_details or data_sources, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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