get_nearby_campuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: pagination via cursor/next_cursor, include_total for total_matches, response shape with payload.table and payload.exports, and the need to follow next_tool_call when completeness.needs_follow_up or pagination.has_more is true. This is rich, non-redundant context.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then provides an example, pagination behavior, and follow-up instructions. Every sentence adds value and is tightly written, covering many important aspects without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return structure (payload.table, payload.exports, distance_miles, flags), pagination mechanics (cursor/next_cursor, include_total), and important edge cases (needs_follow_up, has_more). This is complete for a 7-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example that implicitly uses latitude/longitude and radius_miles, and mentions include_total for pagination awareness, but does not go into parameter-level syntax beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate much extra for the parameter details already present.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find campuses within a radius (miles) of a campus or coordinates.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_campuses or find_campuses_in_district_boundary by emphasizing radius-based geospatial search, and it also notes the return of distance_miles and charter/private flags for filtering.

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 context for when to use the tool via an example ('coords (-95.36, 29.83) with radius 10 to find nearby charters') and explains pagination and follow-up behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list makes the niche clear.

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