get_campus_aggregates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the tool computes aggregates rather than listing raw records, and mentions specific aggregate types. It does not contradict annotations, and this additional context is useful beyond the structured hints.

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 covering purpose, examples, and filter compatibility. No redundant phrases, and the most important information (purpose) is front-loaded. Every 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?

For a read-only aggregate tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and return value concept (aggregate stats). It could be slightly more detailed about the exact structure of the response, but the given examples make it adequate.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description adds meaning by mapping natural language examples ('all charter schools' = status=charter, 'A-rated campuses' = rating=A) to the filter parameters, which helps the agent translate user queries. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and compensates for the missing status description.

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 purpose: 'Compute aggregate statistics (total enrollment, rating distribution, etc.)' for campuses. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_campuses by focusing on aggregate results rather than raw data, and provides concrete example questions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with example questions ('Total enrollment of all charter schools') and refers to search_campuses for filter compatibility. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when individual campus records are needed), so it falls short of a 5.

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