get_district

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds wildcard support and a local data source note, but it does not describe output format or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 somewhat long (four sentences plus an example) but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, limitation, and example. It is front-loaded with the core function and reasonably concise for the information conveyed.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and usage context. It gives examples and directs users to other query types, though it could mention the return format more explicitly. Overall, it is complete for a basic lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining wildcard syntax for the identifier and clarifying that meta_fields requests additional metrics. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'District name or number' and 'Optional list of district meta keys'.

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 looks up a Texas school district by TEA number or name, with specific wildcard support. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as an anchor for district-level questions and a provider of identifiers for other query types, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: to anchor district-level questions or supply identifiers for detail, boundary, or campus list queries. It explicitly warns against using web search for basic info, but it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, which would elevate the score.

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