tes_school_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool reads a public directory, that results are normalized listing facts (name, logo, short description, address), and that the returned ID directly feeds into tes_job_employer. It could mention rate limits or authentication, but for a public search tool this is enough.

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 starts with the core action in the first sentence, then adds result details and the employer-ID linkage. It is not overly long, though the parenthetical on the employer profile fields is a little verbose; overall it earns its place.

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?

The tool's a search endpoint has only one required parameter, no output schema, and a small input schema. The description compensates by describing the returned fields and the key ID relationship. It doesn't cover default pagination, but that is a minor omission for a search tool.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage. The description restates query as 'school name or location', which is the same as the schema, and adds no new parameter format, constraints, or defaults. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Search') and resource (the Tes Schools Directory), and it distinguishes itself from sibling job-search tools by explaining that it returns employer IDs that tes_job_employer accepts. The explicit mention of the integration with tes_job_employer makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context: a caller should use this when they need to get from a name/location search to a full employer profile without first having a job posting. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but it conveys a specific scenario that clearly distinguishes it from the employer-profile tool.

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