find_charter_campuses_within_district

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: returns GeoJSON and a TIGERweb download URL, uses response_profile and campus_list_format to control output, paginates via cursor/next_cursor, and provides payload.table/exports plus a completeness.needs_follow_up flag. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than a few sentences but every sentence earns its place: example, default rationale, pagination, and output formats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains organized, though slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining key response behaviors: GeoJSON for maps, boundary_delivery modes, pagination fields, deterministic table/export payloads, and the follow-up condition. This is comprehensive for a moderately complex tool with 12 parameters.

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 describes 9 of 12 parameters (75% coverage), but the description adds meaning by giving a worked example for district_identifier and campus_query, explaining boundary_delivery's tradeoff, and clarifying how response_profile and campus_list_format affect output. This compensates for the slight coverage gap and enriches default choices.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds charter-only campuses within a district boundary, specifically positioning it as a 'shortcut' and noting it returns GeoJSON. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_campuses_in_district_boundary and map_campuses_within_district by narrowing to charter-only campuses.

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?

Provides a concrete example (Austin ISD with campus_query 'IDEA') and explains default behavior (boundary_delivery='reference' to avoid huge payloads). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the shortcut phrasing and example give clear context for when this is appropriate.

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