get_db_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns reference data intended to reduce hallucination and breaks the return into picklists and a reference example. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or permission requirements. Since an output schema exists, return format details are less critical, but the description could do more to explain the grounding use case.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then concisely lists the two types of grounding and provides Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no waste. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 there is an output schema, the description needn't detail return values, and it does mention the return structure. The input parameter is well explained. The main gap is usage guidance relative to siblings, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that 'domain' is an 'Institution website domain (e.g. \'www.ampa.edu.au\')', which adds format and example meaning beyond the bare schema. This is close to the baseline 4 for zero params, but here it's one param with added semantics, so 4 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Return WHED database reference data for a given institution domain.' It further distinguishes the output into picklists and a reference example, which clarifies what kind of data this returns compared to siblings that scrape or extract. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_extraction_schema, but the purpose is specific enough.

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 implies when it's useful ('to reduce hallucination') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_extraction_schema or validate_profile. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The context is implied but not spelled out.

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