duo_schools

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

The description adds 'Search' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, but beyond that it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, result format, rate limits). The annotation already covers read-only and open-world intent, so the description contributes minimal additional transparency.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. Every word is informative, and the purpose is front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema and four parameters (none required), the description lacks detail on return format, data variability, or field meanings (e.g., school type values). A search tool without output schema needs more context for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for three of four parameters (name, municipality, type) but omits 'top'. This partially compensates for the schema gap, but incomplete parameter coverage limits the score.

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 searches DUO school data by three specific fields: name, municipality, or school type. It effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which target school data.

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 use for school data searches but does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or use-case constraints.

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