search_districts

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the action 'search' and partial name matching. It fails to state the return format or any limitations, leaving significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise: a single purposeful sentence followed by a compact, well-structured Args block. No filler or redundant information.

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?

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters, but it omits the return value description and edge-case behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a clear 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 schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining 'name' as full or partial with examples and 'state' as a two-letter code with an example. This adds complete meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Search for school districts by name, optionally filtered by state', identifying a specific action (search) and resource (school districts). It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like lookup_district_by_address by focusing on name-based search.

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 usage context through the phrase 'by name', contrasting with address-based siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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