lookup_district_by_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (district name, NCES ID, enrollment, etc.) which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid or unmatched addresses, or if it returns a single result. The verb 'Find' implies a lookup but is not explicit about side effects or edge cases.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise list of return fields, and an Args section with a clear example. Every sentence earns its place without wordiness. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it states what it does, what input it needs, and what it returns. The only missing contextual element is failure behavior (e.g., what if the address is not found or is invalid). This does not severely impair usability but leaves a minor gap.

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 input schema only provides the parameter name 'address' with type string and zero schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining 'address: Full US street address' and providing an example ("1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Austin, TX"). This adds clear semantics and format guidance beyond the schema, though it could specify constraints like whether ZIP alone is accepted.

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 function: 'Find the public school district serving a US street address.' This uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('public school district') with a clear scoping condition ('US street address'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_district (likely by ID), search_districts (by name), and find_schools_near_address (address-to-schools).

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 the correct usage: when you have a full US street address and need the district. It clearly states the input requirement ('Full US street address') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. The context is clear, though no exclusions are given, so it fits 'clear context, no exclusions' at a 4.

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