compare_campuses

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that responses include payload.table and payload.exports for deterministic tables and CSV/JSON export. This goes beyond the annotation coverage and clarifies the output format.

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, two sentences, and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, then mentions the optional parameter and response format. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema info.

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 low complexity (2 simple array params), good annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, the optional parameter, and the response payload structure. Minor gaps like explaining 'meta' keys are acceptable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds only marginal meaning ('extra comparison dimensions' for meta_fields) and a usage hint for identifiers, but the schema already provides the core semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 the tool's function: comparing 2+ campuses side-by-side on specific dimensions (rating, enrollment, staffing, demographics). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying multi-campus comparison and mentions the use of identifiers collected via search, setting it apart from single-campus detail tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('benchmarking or compare these campuses prompts') and provides a workflow prerequisite ('after collecting campus identifiers via search'). It does not name alternatives or specify when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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