School details and exam results (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 are aggregated across 'the last years' and benchmarked against county and national averages, but it says nothing about coverage limits, data freshness, or behavior when a school cannot be resolved.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then the payload contents, followed by a short parameter note. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical field lists make it heavy to parse at a glance.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so well by naming the register fields and exam-result dimensions returned. Remaining gaps are minor: no note on how many 'last years' are covered or what an empty/ambiguous match yields.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's restatement ('school: RSPO number or name; town helps to disambiguate') largely duplicates that. The only marginal addition is the disambiguation hint for town, which does not go beyond the schema's own 'Town or gmina' note in a meaningful way.

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 a specific resource (a single school) and enumerates exactly what it returns: register data (type, address, governing body, pupils, teachers, pupils per teacher) and exam results with pass rates and county/national comparisons. The singular 'One school' implicitly contrasts with the plural search-oriented sibling find_schools, but that differentiation is never made explicit.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus find_schools or data_sources. Usage is only implied by the singular framing ('One school') and the note that 'town helps to disambiguate', which hints at a precise-lookup workflow without stating that the agent should resolve a school via find_schools first.

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