search_us_colleges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type (metrics and IDs) but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as result ordering, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. It does not state whether it's read-only or if there are limitations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a clear list of arguments. No unnecessary text, each sentence 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 description covers the parameters and basic output, but lacks usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over search_universities) and behavioral details like result limits or error handling. With an output schema present, return structure is likely covered, but the overall completeness is average.

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 zero description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining each parameter: query as full or partial institution name, state as optional two-letter abbreviation, and limit with a range of 1-25. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property titles.

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 finds U.S. colleges and returns federal College Scorecard metrics and IDs. It specifies the resource (U.S. colleges) and the data source (College Scorecard), distinguishing it from likely sibling tools that might search universities more broadly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_universities. It does not mention any exclusions or criteria for selecting this tool over similar search functions.

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