get_campus_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by reinforcing that data is local and not to search the web, which aligns with openWorldHint=false. It does not describe error handling or response format, but given the strong annotation coverage, the added context is valuable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by important usage caveats and a helpful example. No wasted words, though the example could be seen as slightly extra, it strengthens clarity.

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 campus detail lookup tool with no output schema, the description lists the major data categories returned, provides usage guidance, and points to a sibling tool for additional fields. It does not detail the response structure or meta_fields behavior, but the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity and aligns with the high schema coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds an example ('Show details for campus 227901001') which illustrates usage of the identifier parameter but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a campus profile with a specific list of data categories (Staffing, Class Sizes, Demographics, etc.), using the specific verb 'Return' and resource 'campus profile'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_campus_aggregates, but the detailed list of metrics and the pointer to get_data_fields help define its specific scope.

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 explicit guidance to use get_data_fields for additional metrics, and instructs not to search the web since data is provided locally. This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it does not exhaustively compare with all siblings.

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